Category: Modern Society

Introduction

One of the functions of literature, from thousands of years ago, has been to instruct and reform. Holy books of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are evidence of this. One can find many instances of direct orders to mankind on how to be a better person, lead a better life and find a desirable place in the afterlife in such books. Of course, history has proven that direct, strict orders have not always been a suitable method for educating people and making them follow orders and submit to doctrines since many of them might disobey, rebel, and unfollow those orders and doctrines. In such scenarios, if morality and ethics are among the lost values, society may face a downfall, and harm may be brought to its members.

Social literary figures, then, came into play. Whenever faced with this lack of morality and ethical values, they wrote satires. Abrams and Harpham describe satire as “the literary art of diminishing or derogating a subject by making it ridiculous and evoking toward it attitudes of amusement, contempt, scorn, or indignation” (353). This criticism is usually in the form of satiric comedy, which, as described in A Dictionary of Literary Terms, “ridicule[s] the follies, vices, and shortcomings of society, and of individuals who represent that society” (Cuddon 634). Satire writers would diminish and ridicule the social injustice in their society, and by this, would gather their audience’s attention. No longer in the form of direct orders, satires allowed the readers to laugh at the subject, but also think about it and see its follies more clearly. Once one is able to laugh at something, they become more comfortable with the issue, and drop their defenses, hence, they can take it in more easily, and once they fully grasp the depth of the problem, they can even resist and fight it, and try to bring about change.

Satire has a long history, from Ancient Egypt and Greece to the Medieval Islamic world, to the Age of Enlightenment, and to contemporary pop culture (Wikipedia Contributors), and it is safe to say that it has been, for a long time, part of the realm of literature. But not anymore. In today’s world, satire has mostly migrated from written text to moving pictures and sound, and the duty of informing people of these shortcomings and follies is delegated to the popular culture. Individuals no longer have the time nor the interest to peruse the likes of Gulliver’s Travels or The Rape of the Lock. Authors, likewise, are aware of this change and have switched, mostly, from written text to other media. Sure, there are still magazines and newspaper columns dedicated to political satire, but the main source of satire nowadays is TV, cinema, internet, among others.

Contemporary satire

Talk Shows. There are a few mediums that have undertaken the duty of providing satirical content for members of society. One of the major ones is TV shows. It is clear to everybody nowadays how much TVs mean to us as members of society. They have become one with us, and there is no escaping it. Alongside entertaining us and catching us up with the world, TV shows can provide us with a healthy dose of skepticism and criticism associated with satire. There are many different shows that offer such opportunities. Political late-night shows, such as The Late Show with Stephen Colbert and Jim Jefferies Show, not only provide commentary and criticism on political issues but also, make fun of them by a set of satirical methods. In an episode of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, for example, the host makes fun of the US president, Donald Trump, by pinpointing his goofs that were covered by the news, which were about his lack of knowledge of countries’ names and geographical location, makes fun of him by impersonating him in a parodical manner, and in the end ridicules him even more by a little sketch in the end (Colbert). In the Jim Jefferies Show, usually the host, Jim Jefferies, who is not American, makes fun of faulty American ways of living by looking at them from the viewpoint of a foreigner. Such shows are recorded in studios with live audiences who laugh when the host makes a joke, reducing the tension and inviting the viewers at home to laugh at them too and to consider the ridiculousness of the subject being discussed.

TV Series. Another genre of TV that has the potential to provide the audience with satire is TV series. The possibilities of social satire are limitless. One of my favorite cases of social satire is The Orville. In this science fiction adventure series, which also is a comedy-drama, and takes place in a futuristic and technologically advanced society, we see not just the sci-fi stuff, but also the everyday life that we are living right now. Topics such as women’s rights, gay rights, political oppression, and censorship, among others, are portrayed. As a TV reviewer puts it, “There’s something both weighty and rewarding about seeing a generally lighthearted show on network TV wrestle with topics that other shows pointedly ignore” (Henriksen). Another series that has an even more powerful satirical overtone is South Park. In the introduction to his book South Park and Philosophy, Robert Arp boldly claims that South Park “is the most important series on TV” (1) because it is “[u]nafraid to lampoon the extremist fanatics associated with any social, political, ethical, economic, and religious views” (Arp 1). Once found in the works of the likes of Swift, nowadays we can see such constructive criticism on our TV sets.

Films. Among films, I can mention a few of the most iconic films that revolve around the idea of satire, and, parody, which is a branch of satire. As Abrams and Harpham describe, “parody imitates the serious manner and characteristic features of a particular literary work, or the distinctive style of a particular author, or the typical stylistic and other features of a serious literary genre, and deflates the original by applying the imitation to a lowly or comically inappropriate subject (38). There are many cases of parody in literature, and likewise, in TV series and films: from parodic sketches in Family Guy to parodic instances of Family Feud with celebrities that take place inside The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon. When it comes to films, one of the most famous parodic comedy works is Monty Python and the Holy Grail, which parodies the legend of King Arthur, and in general, the medieval lifestyle of chivalry and heroism. By employing parody, the filmmakers create a long familiar yet different atmosphere which is quite funny at times with its anachronisms and intertextual reference to other works and even itself. Once this atmosphere is established, then the audience is more willing to take in whatever satirical message the movie has to offer. In this case, as a reviewer so shrewdly notices, the message is the movie’s

mockery of the social class structure. The Monty Python team begins to mock the class system in the ‘Bring out Your Dead’ scene. You see a man-drawn cart on which dead villages have been placed. These villages all belong to the same social class: low income, dirty, and poorly mannered, which is evident in their behavior and appearance. The class separation is noticed as King Arthur gallops through the village. As one villager questions the identity of the stranger, a second villager comments ‘…must be a king.’ The first villager then inquires as to why he must be a king, who is replied with the following: ‘he hasn’t got shit all over him.’ This scene depicts an obvious separation between the villagers and royalty, indicating that royalty is a clean, well-kept, well-mannered class, whereas the villagers and low and filthy. (Swanson)

She continues with a few other examples of social class separation and even the problem of the US with the Vietnam War (Swanson). This shows how effectively can parody work hand in hand with satire to deliver a message.

A similar case, this time in TV, is Galavant, which parodies the general medieval literature, fairy tales, knighthood, chivalry, heroic love, etc., and even some more recent works, such as Les Misérables musical (“Galavant”). Using parody, the audience can be reintroduced and involved with classical works, and their forgotten values. Not only that but also social topics such as the fair distribution of power among people can be discussed in a funny manner, something that we see in Galavant.

Some other movies with satirical and parodic overtones include the Austin Powers series, Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, The Dictator, Monty Python: Life of Brian, among many others, all of which contributed to their society one way or another.

Stand-up Comedy. Finally, is the genre of stand-up comedy. This rather recent phenomenon has become a major attraction to many audiences around the world, and there have been stand-up comedians who have taken it upon themselves to use this platform as a means to speak about social issues in a satirical manner. One of the most famous and influential stand-up comedians of this type was George Carlin, who “at the end of the 1960s let his hair and beard grow long, turned away from mainstream nightclubs, and reinvented himself as the comedic voice of the counterculture—skewering the war culture, middle-class hypocrisy, and his own Catholic upbringing” (Zoglin). His critical, satirical stand-up brought to light many social issues and his uncensored and often profane language has influenced many other great stand-up comedians who followed his path.

Another stand-up comedian, who in fact was influenced by George Carlin, is Jim Jefferies. Before I get to him, let’s quote Quintero on the quality of a satirist: “any satirist deserving the name must be more than a partisan advocate or a clownish entertainer, for a true satirist must be a true believer, a practicing humanitarian, responsible even in his or her own subjective indulgence or personal indignation” (3). In one of his most famous performances, “Bare,” Jefferies, who is Australian, speaks against the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution2 for an American audience in a satirical manner:

Please understand that I understand that Australia and America [are] two vastly different cultures with different people, right? I get it. In Australia, we had the biggest massacre on Earth and the Australian government went: “THAT’S IT! NO MORE GUNS!” and we all went: “Yeah right then, that seems fair enough” [audience laughter] Now in America you have the Sandy Hook massacre where little, tiny children died and your government went: “maybe … we’ll get rid of the big guns?!” And fifty percent of you went “F**K YOU! DON’T TAKE MY GUNS! 3” (Jefferies 00:00:48-00:01:26)

Throughout the rest of his routine, he keeps going on about how he doesn’t like guns and thinks that they are dangerous and should be banned (Jefferies). Here we can see that Jefferies, as a true believer in what he preaches, is indeed responsible and claims to live up to his word. This is how a satirist should be, and what satire should be about.

Conclusion

Satirical works have been with us for a very long time, helping us in times of need, and reminding us of who we are as a society and to change when we need to. In recent years, popular culture has been the outlet for many satirical works, many of which have been appreciated by society and have influenced people’s viewpoints and lives. TV shows, films, stand-up comedies, and songs, among others, are ways through which satirists can express themselves and affect others. As Quintero notes, “Not only concerned with what has happened but also with what may happen, the satirist, through a historical logic of inference and extrapolation into the future, may also serve as a cautionary prophet or an idealistic visionary” (2). Societies need such prophets, even more so now that they are comedians on the side.

Notes

1. 1. Most of my pop culture references in this paper are that of the USA and GB; being an avid consumer of the internet, and having free access to almost all materials (God bless the no-copyright rule here, right?!) I have lost contact with Iranian television for more than 10 years, and unfortunately am not up-to-date with it enough to bring examples in this paper.
2. 2. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (“Second Amendment”)
3. 3. This is a transcription of a part of a YouTube video, which I did myself.

Works Cited

1. Abrams, M. H., and Geoffrey Galt Harpham. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 10th ed., Wadsworth, 2012.
2. Cuddon, J. A. A Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory. Revised by M. A. R. Habib, 5th ed., Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.
3. Wikipedia Contributors. “Satire.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 20 January 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire. Accessed 22 January 2019.
4. Colbert, Stephen. “Geography 101: World Maps Trump Can Understand.” YouTube, uploaded by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, 14 July 2018, www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBNKyuYucR0
5. Henriksen, Erik. “It’s Bleak Out There! Beat Your Winter Blues with Happy TV.” The Stranger. Index Newspapers LLC, 30 January 2019, www.thestranger.com/film/2019/01/30/38457587/its-bleak-out-there-beat-your-winter-blues-with-happy-tv, Accessed 31 January 2019.
6. Arp, Robert. South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007.
7. “Galavant.” TV Tropes, tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Series/Galavant. Accessed 25 January 2019.
8. Swanson, Lynn. “Apparent Comedy, Subtle Disdain: An analytical paper on satire in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.” Ringling College of Art and Design, webspace.ringling.edu/~ccjones/curricula/11-12/satire/readings/criticalpapers/swanson.html. Accessed 22 January 2019.
9. Zoglin, Richard. “Stand-up comedy.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 17 March 2017. www.britannica.com/art/stand-up-comedy. Accessed 22 January 2019.
10. Quintero, Ruben. A Companion to Satire. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2007.
11. Jefferies, Jim. “Jim Jefferies — Gun Control (Part 1) from BARE — Netflix Special.” YouTube, 9 October 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0.
12. “Second Amendment.” Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School, www.law.cornell.edu/lii/about/about_lii. Accessed 28 January 2019.

Think that tattoos won’t affect your future? Well, think again. According to “History of Tattoos,” 36% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 have at least one tattoo. Before getting inked, I suggest you read this paper. Tattoos have been around for thousands of years; although, over the past few decades, they have become more prevalent. Studies mainly reveal a negative impact on hiring. This research paper explores how tattoos affect employment opportunities and how this stigma has changed over the years. Should the standards of professional appearance change? I argue that visible tattoos negatively affect employment chances but not always. It varies and depends on the nature of the company; in different fields there are different rules.

In Kyler Alvord’s article ‘Tattoos In The Workplace: Deal Or No Deal?’, she writes about how in the past tattoos were a professional suicide but thats not the case anymore. Visible Tattoos don’t portray how skillful the human being is, therefore managers should not “judge a book by its cover.” As in Alvord’s article, she mentions Michael Danes, a former Seattle-based business executive with tattoos, “As someone who has managed numerous amounts of people in blue collar positions and a white collar corporate position, I believe that these things are surface level and do not account for what this person may have in skills” (Alvord, 2019). Although not everybody has the same unprejudiced perception as Danes. Why do some employers still judge candidates based on physical appearance? Two likely reasons: they might be displaying prejudice or employee’s appearance might hurt the company’s image to consumers. Despite that in life you are always told to express yourself and to live authentically; once it comes to hiring or in the workplace, it’s all, “Please cover your tattoos, delete your social media accounts, use this photo on your LinkedIn and for heaven’s sake remove your piercings”(Alvord, 2019). The United States a free country that encourages its people to express themselves freely but this prejudice is still seen within hiring processes.

The issue of visible tattoos being restricted in the workplace is not going to go away. According to Williams, Thomas & Christensen, authors of “You Need to Cover Your Tattoos! : reconsidering Standards of Professional Appearance in Social Work.” They analyze professional appearance standards in the workplace and also mention an increase of tattoos in the United States. Overall, research shows a higher prevalence rate and diverse motivations regarding tattoos. Williams, Thomas & Christensen believe that it is important for employees to be sensitive to the perceptions of others who may not like tattoos. Employees have to treat all customers equally, shouldn’t all customers treat all employees the same as well? Yes, it is their job on the line but people who work face-to-face jobs i’m assuming do not refuse to sell to the customer because of their appearance. I can agree with Williams, Thomas & Christensen, that it is important to have professional appearance in the workplace, although now, tattoos do not affect professionality, it creates diversity in the workplace.

Where is this issue currently seen the most? According to Alvord, the issue is mainly visible within companies whose employees jobs are involved working with consumers on a face-to-face basis every day. These types of companies are family-friendly, so they need to be sensitive and portray this image and provide service to the customer’s expectations. But does having tattoos interfere with the service being provided? No. Why have people stigmatised tattoos as being non-sensitive or not “family friendly.” When it comes to creating workplace tattoo policies, companies have to prioritize their values. They would rather eliminate all risks of possibly offending a conservative consumer. The same question pops up: why does this stigma appear again? It is not clear to many that tattoos and piercings could be offensive nowadays. It’s a form of art, just like graffiti; instead of it being an act of vandalism, people currently see that graffiti is what diversifies and embraces a city’s beauty. How do peoples’ perception of graffiti change but not of tattoos? However, companies should avoid contradicting core values concerning human diversity, cultural competence, and empowerment.

The first problem it raises is discrimination. Williams, Thomas, and Christensen state, “Perhaps not surprising, new research shows that such stigma and prejudice lead to workplace discriminatory effects, specifically related to potential employment and workplace policies, practices, and promotions.” Behind tattoos lies a lot of stigma and prejudice that lead to discrimination either from the hiring manager, co-workers, and customers. All three outcomes are not good especially with the hiring manager because that could cost your job. On the other hand, if the job involves working with customers on a face-to-face basis, the conserviative consumers might possibly affect your sales. Lastly, co-workers could treat each other differently according to your physical appearance, but at the end of the day they have to treat you for who you are. All of these components of discrimination contradict core values regarding human diversity. Also, it creates a problem for the employes themselves since they are confused about what actions to take to avoid discrimination.

According to Lisa Guerin, a lawyer who wrote the article “Can I Be Fired Because of My Tattoos?” regarding Employer Dress Code & Grooming Policies, the appearance policy requiring employees to cover tattoos is legal unless it violates laws prohibiting discrimination. Even if it does not discriminate, it arises other problems such as forcing employees to decide between appearance or values. Some people’s tattoos could define who they are; therefore, people would have to contradict their morals and values by hiding their method of expression. Tattoos do not always have to be derived from negative concepts, they could solely come from positive ideas such as a reminder to keep moving forward in life. Would you ask a person to have their meaningful tattoos covered? It is important that as societal norms shift and new knowledge develops, attitudes and policies among social workers should keep up with such changes.

People should not have to hide their identity; hiding is not the solution. Companies that have a “no visible tattoo” policy should stop enforcing this rule because it is discriminating. Although tattoos in the workplace are currently not as big an issue as they were in the past, employee diversity is important for building a better tomorrow. Alvord argues that “Businesses across the country, from AMC Theaters to Ross to Denny’s to Office Depot, enforce ‘no visible tattoo’ policies. On the other end of the spectrum, we have the tattoo-friendly companies, including big players like Google, UPS and Target.” The question we ask here is why does Google, one of the most prominent companies in the world, not have a no tattoo policy? Removing the policy will fix the problem since the policy will no longer be a motive for hiring managers; but, nonetheless, it all depends on the hiring managers’ perception of visible tattoos. This is a problem that is harder to attack because nobody is fully capable of changing the manager’s perception.

But if we are not able to fix the problem on the hirerer’s end, there’s always the other end, the hiree’s end. Despite the fact that predictions reveal that as the new generation takes on the world, tattoos will gradually become normal in the workplace. However, people today should be well aware that having a visible tattoo might impact their chances of getting hired. Future employees might not have to hide their tattoos; but since life has been set the way it is, people should encourage the youth to not get visible tattoos because they could possibly have a negative impact on employment opportunities. Tattoos are permanent and come with a price: they are costly and painful to remove. Not getting visible tattoos could increase employment chances and prevent discriminition. If precautions were taken, employees would find themselves in a win-win situation.

After examining the outcomes, visible tattoos do affect employment chances but not as much as the past. It varies and depends on the nature of the company; in different fields there are different rules. I can conclude that it’s not the company’s prestige that matters, rather their target audience and the level of interaction they have with that audience. Research the companies you want to work for and be careful not to ink anything that could be seen as offensive.

A current event in a newspaper article illustrates a form of racism against an African American athlete. Chuks Aneke, a player of the Milton Keynes Dons professional soccer team, was allegedly the subject of a racist social media post. The post was made after the Dons were beaten in a game by the Tranmere Rovers. A fan from the Rovers created a post that compared Aneke to a monkey based on his skin color and actions on the field. The Tranmere Rovers were not hesitant to place appropriate bans on any fan that was involved in the racist comments portrayed towards their opponent Aneke. Both teams have decided to work together with their players and supporters in society, to further remove any form of discrimination from the sport of soccer. A current event in a newspaper article illustrates a form of sexism between men and women, and the different positions of work they are being granted.

A new study on the progress of Nature Climate Change has revealed that the more women are involved in land management the more the conservation of wildlife increases and shines more attention to the societal inequalities present in this field of male dominance. If women were offered financial incentives, women could also help save the planet. If we ensured a balance between men and women in government and environmental policy positions, this could help lower sexism arguments. Men tend to dominate CEO positions and high-paying jobs because they have this image that women are not suited to fulfill high job descriptions. This example represents hostile sexism because it shows how men hold negative stereotypes about the female gender, supporting the idea that women are inferior to men. In all cultures and periods, women have been restricted to social roles with less status than those given to men. This is a form of hostile sexism because it degrades women for the sole fact that men are fearful of their ego being challenged.

The racist comments and sexist economic opportunities both constitute prejudice. Fans of sports teams can place biases on the team they are playing. The fan that created the racist post on social media about Chuks, had a preconceived opinion that was not based on reason. The fan simply posted the monkey meme to cause harm to and hinder Chuks’ confidence because his team lost. The post made the fans feel good about themselves because they could hurt the player without physically presenting harm to them. The fan held a bias and preconceived notion towards Aneke, which led to a prejudiced remark placed widely on the internet. We see prejudiced remarks being placed on the different genders so often throughout our daily lives.

In the Nature Climate Change study, men believe women are inferior and deserve a lesser status. There are countless male prejudices about women, especially regarding women being housewives. These biases are placed to impair the confidence in women and to influence them to believe that they should feel less than a man. For racism and sexism to be institutionalized, this refers to the unjust mistreatment of an individual or group of individuals by society as a whole, through unequal selection or bias. It stems from stereotypical beliefs by a vast majority living in a society that views discrimination as a norm. These examples of sexism and racism are institutionalized forms because mistreatment is viewed as a norm in our society and has a severe detrimental effect on the affected populations of women and African Americans.

Our society places unequal biases on these populations because of the long history they have of being seen as less than men and other races. According to the Social Learning Theory, our observations dictate how we behave towards certain situations and people. There are consequences to exposing young people to this material because they have no concept of the reasoning behind it. The youth tend to follow those around them and act in ways that others are acting, as a source of information. Consequences of these exposures can lead to, being an abusive parent if abused as a child, or having more aggression if you were spanked for doing something wrong. These children tend to develop more attitudes and beliefs about aggression from models they have experienced.

They construct ways to act automatically toward a situation based on their previous observations. Kids can learn violence at a young age by being exposed to and watching violence. If children see violence on social media, they tend to create a perception in their minds that the world is a violent place because that is all they see. To minimize these consequences, society can teach children to learn empathy to develop a pure motive for helping. Parents can find the conditions or settings where most of the aggressive behavior occurs and work on reducing these actions. Parents can try to be civilized around children by not showing aggression because children imitate adults’ actions that they witness in a social setting. Individuals should try to exhibit positive behaviors to teach the youth around them to have their standards, not just those embedded in their heads from early exposure.

References

1. Sparks, Hannah, and Hannah Sparks. ‘Women Might Save the Planet If You Pay Them, Study Says.’ New York Post. March 22, 2019. Accessed April 16, 2019. https://nypost.com/2019/03/22/women-might-save-the-planet-if-you-pay-them-study- says/.
2. ‘Chuks Aneke: MK Dons and Tranmere Condemn Racist Post Aimed at Forward – BBC Sport.’ BBC News. April 15, 2019. Accessed April 16, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47933299?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cmj34zmwx21t/racism&link_location=live-reporting-story.

The world is changing in my opinion for the worse. New features through graphics and history are continuously being created. Many thoughts are lost because as they change, they may never be uncovered. Democracy and freedom are controlled. The climate, as we know, is increasingly shifting to the worst possible situation it’s ever been in, stereotypes, and abuses are socially resilient as people fight, fuel animosity, bully each other, and justify what they should not do.

Discrimination and hatred are now circulating across the world. Groups such as the LGBTQ+ community are under attack. Their rights are being put under the Supreme Court to determine if they should repeal the same-sex marriage act. “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”. This quote from the Bill of Rights was misused by California’s Proposition 8. The right to marry same-sex couples was abolished by the plan, keeping citizenship discriminatory for an increasing population of people.

People are discriminated against based on race, place of birth, personal image, social-economic class, and religious views. Racism is a form of damage. There is a broad spectrum of concepts of racism, including bigotry, abuse, discrimination, and prejudice. This kind of fanfare is incongruous since there are no ‘superior species’, they are simply distinct. The attack on a group of people is natural and hardly shocking. America is a country of incredibly nuanced people. The United States is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse regions in the world. Groups are indifferent, and each individual can be seen equally within and outside their borders.

I do believe that in time this world can change into something beautiful where everyone will be able to love who they want and not be afraid to be who they are. In a lot of time and healing, I think that there will be free health care and no flagrant and open racism in society. They will be open to new communities and lifestyles. When something strange happens, people are still going to hate one another and destroy each other. Hate in this world consumes people into darkness and sadness, I believe that if not only America but the entire world continues to be the way it is a horrible and nasty place then, that’s what’s going to kill off our society.

Picture a woman, exquisitely dressed while cleaning her home yet looking as stunning as ever as if she never lifted a finger. Not only does this woman clean but makes sure that her children and husband are happy. Women in the fifties had household roles that consisted of homemaking. Every woman’s ideal American family consisted of a marriage that included a husband capable of providing and children of their own. Women of the fifties strictly observed and complied with society’s expectations. Now picture a different scene with three suburban families. These families hold a family portrait while they pose for a family photo in their front yards. Everything seems reasonably fine until the differences and similarities between the traditional and modern-day family structures are analyzed. First off, there is a family of five – a husband, wife, and their three children – a traditional family unit. Next, the second family consists of same-sex partnerships and their adopted child. To sum up the last family, there’s a marriage between an older man and his trophy wife and their step-child. Families of the modern day show diversity in gender roles, where women can be breadwinners and mothers. And fathers can be less responsible and more involved in their children’s shenanigans. And relationships don’t all consist of heterosexual relationships but can be same-sex. And families can consist of interracial relationships and can create blended families. And relationships don’t care much about age just as long as both are over 18 years of age. Adoption is popular for gender composition families. Moreover, television entertainment has helped send a message of what an ideal American family should look like, particularly through sitcoms. So, the question arises, what was and is now the ideal American family depicted in sitcoms? It is the answer to this question that this work is dedicated to.

The popular TV comedy sitcom ‘I Love Lucy’ represented the social norms of the fifties. Lucy Ricardo, a 1950s housewife who played a submissive woman who needed her husband to save her distressed moment of careless, account-managing habits in the episode titled ‘The Quiz Show’. Lucy Ricardo is a distraught woman not have enough money to pay bills and shares with her friend her system for paying bills. This woman threw all her bills up in the air, and those that landed face up were the ones that got paid, and those face down didn’t. There is a scene where Lucy loses her opportunity to be responsible for the household accounts, and as a consequence, Ricky Ricardo, her husband, allotted Lucy a lower allowance amount to teach her a lesson. Lucy was disappointed and saddened by this, so her friend invited her to go see a radio show called ‘Females Are Fabulous’. In this show, they advertised that there were prizes that could be won by participation and the first prize was $1000! Eager to make up for her mistakes, Lucy decides to participate and try to win the $1000 prize. Little did Lucy know that the show required her to make a fool out of herself to participate!

Even though sitcoms from the fifties shared what families were like in the fifties, it made humor out of it! Humor that makes fun of the character’s personalities and their daily lives. That’s why ‘I Love Lucy’ is a beloved show to this day! In ‘I Love Lucy’, Ricky Ricardo plays Lucy’s Husband and plays a man who is in charge! Ricky’s demeanor poses a man who is well-educated and responsible for providing for his family. Ricky’s relationship with Lucy seems a bit infantilized, sharing the superiority theory of humor. The superiority theory of humor involves humor in the feeling of being superior to someone. This show also shares how households in the fifties were patriarchies led by their husbands. Lucy is a pretty lady and wife who portrays how little she knew about things that required academics. Lucy’s character shares a perfect example of an ideal housewife of the fifties. In the last five minutes of the show, Lucy wins the $1000 and Ricky collects the money and leaves Lucy with some change. The show depicts humor, in reality, a reality that portrays a mere image of what things look like in that period.

‘Modern Family’ is a show that shares the ideal American family of the modern day, where diversity and differences are accepted. Modern comedies present the same theories of humor in a way that shares moments of our time. And in the show ‘Modern Family’, there is diversity in each character and personality. There is a mixture of blended families, same-sex orientations, and gender roles that have swapped through time. This diversity of race, gender orientation, and personality gives a perfect mixture of comedy.

In the show ‘Modern Family’, in the episode titled ‘Mother!’, Cameron and Mitchell, a same-sex couple, get an unexpected visit from Mitchell’s mother, DeDe, where they begin to realize what effect she has on their lives. Cam and Mitch figure out that Mitchell’s mother has been manipulating their decisions for over 15 years. Claire, Mitchell’s sister, mother of three adolescent teens, and wife to Phil Dunphy, her husband who has the maturity of a teenage boy, plays a successful woman who runs her father’s business. Phil and his son are in the garage flying a drone that accidentally hits a portrait of Claire that was for work. As a solution to fix the portrait, they cut out Morgan Freeman’s front teeth from a magazine and paste it onto the portrait. Phil attempts to fix it more by blow drying the glue from behind the portrait, and as a result, ends up melting more of the portrait. In this scene, Phil Dunphy shares with his son that there is a window where Claire is most relaxed and lets problems slide because of her state of mind. This scene shares the superiority theory of humor when Phil’s son plays a boy who doesn’t know much about ‘the open window’ that Claire has annually, right after her spa day. Phil Dunphy and his children decide to share their lousy personal news during the open window where she is most relaxed.

This show best illustrates the social norms of today which represent the modern-day American family. ‘Modern Family’ shares controversial diversity in a way where humor is unservile to controversial issues. In the show, viewers can see the dysfunctionalities and differences that exist in families. And family can be anyone who can love and be together no matter what race you come from or what sexual orientation you prefer.

The beauty in comedy lies through the lens looking within where you can see more than laughter and joy. You can see family values and systems of beliefs and relationships with different family structures. The ideal American family is one where love exists no matter what the problem it encounters. A family that sticks together stays together, and comedy sitcoms do just that by sharing moments in time.

One may go on a hike or a walk while surrounded by nature, while also being in solitude. The Transcendentalism movement began in the 1820s when people began to believe nature can free our minds and allow us to connect with our inner spirits. This idea is still believed today, and used by many as a way to relax or feel at peace. When I spent an hour in nature with no available distractions, I felt clear-minded and found that these beliefs can indeed help one discover self-understanding.

The Transcendentalists believed in the importance of an individual’s direct relationship with God and with nature. Nature is thought to help people improve spiritually and help us connect or have harmony with the world. Although my excursion into nature was not a spiritual, life-changing experience, it helped me feel a sense of clarity. I was unable to distract myself with technology or work, so I could only focus on my inner thoughts and the peace around me. At the beginning of my hour in nature, I had a lot of stress and things lingering on my mind. I had spent my time outside thinking, and the lack of disturbances allowed me to process my thoughts and eventually feel a kind of escape from reality. However, there were several times I felt bored rather than detached from the world. I wanted to preoccupy myself with something and got impatient. Eventually, I found consolation in my surroundings and began being able to clear my mind. My surroundings and the beauty of nature helped me find a sense of clarity, inspiring me to feel at peace. Transcendentalists constantly asserted the idea that there is a priority of spirit over matter. They believed that nature is the source of all truth and inspiration. In addition, it was significant that one rids themself of materialistic things and strives for an emotional connection with the universe instead. The presence of a holy spirit in nature and one’s soul made the search for a direct understanding of God and the natural world easier in the minds of transcendentalists. Nature’s main purpose was to allow one insight into the laws of the universe, thus bringing man closer to God. While nature today is not always used in a religious context, people will still use it as a way to feel spiritually free and allow us to connect with ourselves.

A simple, resourceful, and calming way to clear one’s mind is to spend time in nature. The Transcendentalism movement spread the idea, which is still used today, that being one with nature is virtuous, and helps one escape from the evils of society. After spending time in the solitude of nature, I would recommend individuals appreciate and use nature as a way to de-stress and or clear one’s mind.

Mythology is defined as a collection of myths or stories about a particular culture or group with shared beliefs. Since the olden days, mankind has utilized storytelling as an attempt to expound on the intricacies of the world as it is. During the Stone Age, the Vikings used tales of Norse mythology, gods, and fabled monsters to explain the world. Similarly, modern man replicates this in the form of ‘godly’ heroes fighting against monstrous and villainous characters with unparalleled strength and intellect. From this viewpoint, superheroes are depicted as a form of mythology in modern times, through the illustrious backdrop of the dreamlike and fantastical. This concept is very astutely exemplified by the likes of two major superheroes: Superman and Wonder Woman. Although their powers are obtained through different means, they are similar to olden mythological lore, whereby these characters regularly tackle major philosophical and cultural concepts and narratives in their respective eras. In this case, the issues that the superheroes address are akin to socioeconomic and political issues in our world today. Beyond a reflection of social phenomena, modern superhero stories encompass the complexities of life, and many times the humanly flawed characters are manifestations of our inherent human nature. We are able to see ourselves in the character, and in this regard, it draws us even closer to the superheroes.

Superman was the ‘first’ superhero in common media, as well as the most publicized character in the entire pantheon of superheroes and supervillains. His backstory is rather tragic; sent to Earth on a one-man spaceship by his parents from the planet Krypton while the planet was disintegrating around them, Kal-El was then adopted and raised by kindly farmers in the state of Iowa. Blessed with strength and abilities far beyond the imagination of mortal men, Kal-El soon grows to become one of the greatest forces in championing truth and justice, that the world has not yet seen.

Like many superheroes, Superman possesses many attributes that make him far beyond the scope and reach of humanity. To man, he is the savior sent from the heavens, a place far beyond the stars, and much more advanced than anything conceivable in our world. In many ways, we are able to draw many parallels between Superman and mythical gods such as Zeus and Poseidon. While these characters are mysterious beings and will not hesitate to sacrifice everything for the sake of mankind, therein lies a stark difference. Superman is more human and perfectly human. Although originally from Krypton, he was raised by human parents, therefore embodying the very human experiences, morals, and perspectives that we are all too familiar with.

In this regard, Superman struggles on an emotional note, mainly with the constant need of protecting Earth, as its protector. In some issues, Superman’s opponents are much stronger and more intelligent than him. This was exemplified glaringly in the issue where Superman’s tragic death and return were discussed. Throughout the issue, Superman struggles with saving the world, while also at the same time battling Doomsday, mainly enduring hits from the behemoth of a powerhouse. Even though Superman never gave up, he made the ultimate sacrifice with his life to prevent any further destruction. In death, however, Superman stood steadfast to his values and never surrendered to his untimely fate. Eventually, through some alien technological intervention, he can return as humanity’s champion. It is not Superman’s feats that inspire people, but rather his spirit.

In many ways, Superman embodies man’s visions and ideals. While being a grand force far beyond the reaches of humanity, he is however still very human and grounded in other aspects. Superman has always embodied values pertinent to what the current age/demographic admires. For example, during the Great Depression, Superman was a powerful crusader fighting for social justice, seeking justice for the poor and downtrodden. In 1979, during the Watergate Crisis and the Vietnam War, Superman was illustrated as an honest and true person, symbolizing the values of truth and justice. This is a stark contrast to his previous image, in which he was much more rash and violent while fighting for justice.

Another prominent example of superheroes in modern mythology is Wonder Woman. With a backstory heavily laden with the likeliness of ancient mythology, Amazon Princess Diana of Themyscira was formed from a lump of magical clay and bestowed the power of the gods. Perhaps alluding to her mythical origins, most of Wonder Woman’s iconic moments were deeply infused with mythical lore and characters befitting of that concept. Wonder Woman has many connections to classical mythology, she is not just an adaptation and amalgamation of mythical concepts, she is unique and independent in her own right, a myth in our modern age.

What makes Wonder Woman a modern myth is likely attributed to the issues that her character regularly deals with. Wonder Woman was modeled with the idea that women could not only stand on equal footing with men but instead stand higher than most of them. Although Wonder Woman was made to be remotely masculine to display her feats of strength, she has been, for the most part, a deeply feminine character. Despite her aggressive and war-like persona, she has constantly displayed compassion and love on many counts. Femininity also extended to different aspects of her character, such as Wonder Woman’s arsenal of weapons, containing weaponized jewelry such as a tiara and unbreakable bracelets. Simply put, Wonder Woman exists as the symbol of the inherent strength in womanhood.

In conclusion, superheroes are essentially a depiction of humanity’s struggles on many counts. However, it also encapsulates the very essence of hope, fear, and dreams that we are all too familiar with. Superheroes also examine their own humanity, such as Wonder Woman in her reflection on the innate strength of womanhood, and Superman on the ultimate human ideal. Superhero stories also impart moral values, incorporating important life lessons that illustrate the proper way of living our lives, whilst also emphasizing the importance of having order in society. Granted that superheroes may not necessarily possess the omnipotence and omniscience that their counterparts in Greek mythologies depict, the very existence of superheroes in our modern day and age provides us with the same reverence and hope that mythologies gave the people of that time. Hence, it can be said that superheroes are indeed a part of modern myth in our time.

With modern technology at its peak and the amazing changes that have taken place in the global market, the trend to shop online is increasing day by day. People are getting involved with the internet and online stores to get the essential things for their daily use.

But there are some, who prefer to shop in stores rather than go online for the same task. These people are not ill-advised or live in remote pasts, they just have their mindset on buying things in stores. People want to get a heads up for what they are buying and to get a sense of surety with the fact that their money is going to the right place.

But ‘’is it better to shop online or in-store” is a paradoxical question and has many reasons and judgments of its own.

We will throw some insight into both eventualities of buying online Vs in stores.

What and why people buy online

To get around this two-headed question, let us consider some facts about why people prefer buying online and what they are interested in. The whole row about online shopping Vs in-store shopping comes to this, what interests people online and does not induce the same thrill in stores? Well, there may be several reasons:

1. Goods that are difficult to get hands-on like electronics, home, and kitchen items, or certain books which are rare.
2. Video games and other limited-edition stuff have been wiped out from the stores already.
3. Millennials (young adults) and business owners are more likely to shop online.
4. Home delivery and setting up service, which is free of charge.
5. The whole global market is just at the disposal of your fingers.
6. Convenient shopping with price comparison and a touch of variety.

These factors convince people to shop and seek online shopping compared to in-store.

People shopping in stores

We heard what online shopping people had to say, now let’s hear what people have to say about shopping in a store.

The people who dislike the idea of shopping online Vs in in-store have their own beliefs. They mostly buy food and clothing items in stores, because this allows them to judge for quality and freshness of the items they are buying. The following key points will shed some good light on this topic:

1. People are interested in buying their grocery and food items by themselves.
2. Conscious people always prefer going to a market for their needs, because it gives them a sense of accomplishment.
3. Cosmetics and health care items are also a priority in in-store shopping.
4. People can get their items at retail prices instead of paying double for them over online channels.
5. The “Try it and take it” philosophy is the number one factor that compels people to shop in person because they want to see, touch, and try whatever they are spending their money on.
6. And there are always some people who can’t just wait for that delivery truck to arrive with their item, they go and grab it.

This was an overview of psychological analysis of people who are shopping online and shopping in-store. The only difference is their mindset which compels them to take a side and roll with it. Both choices have their pros and cons, but instead of taking a side and getting stuck with the option for the rest of our lives, we can switch between buying online Vs in in-store.

We can buy certain items from stores and some specific ones over the internet. This hybrid decision will not hurt a bit, instead, it will ease things for us regarding shopping or buying necessary items for our daily use,   

William Shakespeare was a playwright, actor and poet. He was born in Stratford-upon-Avon, England and while his date of birth is unknown but he was baptised on the 26th April, 1564. The first play he ever wrote was Henry VI, Part I, in 1590 and the first play of his to be performed was Henry VI, Part II, in 1591. In total he wrote 38 plays that fell into the categories of: Comedies, plays that were most often about finding love where no one dies. Tragedies, plays that were sad and often meaningful that also usually ended in protagonists dying. Histories, plays that retold a significant historical event. Even though I don’t like Shakespeare and I don’t think his work should be so over-taught in school, I cannot dispute that many factors of his work are still very much relevant today.

Shakespeare is still relevant because he alone has shaped the English language into what it is today. He created over 1700 words, many of which are everyday words that you don’t even know are his. Words like bet, hint, lonely and swagger were all invented by Shakespeare, and have been accustomed into everyday life. All these new words alone make Shakespeare’s plays one of a kind. Proof of this is in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act 3, Scene 1, where puck says, “What hempen home-spuns have we swaggering here?” or in Coriolanus, Act 4, Scene 1, where Coriolanus says, “Like to a lonely dragon, that his fen, Makes fear’d and talk’d of more than seen.” These quotes and many others prove that Shakespeare contributed largely to the English language, and how we communicate.

Another reason Shakespeare is so relevant is that most of his characters, especially in his comedies, have problems that many of us can relate to and even after 450 years we can relate and sympathise with them when something bad happens, and celebrate with them when something positive happens in the play. This means we enjoy the play far more as we were far more engaged in it. There is proof of this in Much Ado About Nothing in Act 1, Scene 1, where Claudio says, “How sweetly you do minister to love,That know love’s grief by his complexion! But lest my liking might too sudden seem,” where he is talking about his love for Hero, and how he is worried he is going to scare or off or that he is in the wrong. Love is a problem that many people struggle with and by making his characters experience these problems as well makes the characters far more likeable and immerses the audience in the play, hundreds of years later.

In conclusion Shakespeare is still relevant because his plays helped build the language that we use daily and because he has the ability to engage audiences with common problems that we can all relate to. In conclusion like Valerie Strauss said in 2015, “To dismiss Shakespeare on the grounds that life 450 years ago has no relation to life today is to dismiss every religious text, every piece of ancient mythology, and…everything that wasn’t written in whatever time defined as now,” and even though I don’t think Shakespeare should be the focus of almost every english or drama essay, he is still relevant in today’s world.

William Shakespeare was an English poet, actor, and playwright, known as the greatest writer in the English language and the world’s greatest dramatist. He was born in April 1564 and died on 23 April 1616. Shakespeare wrote three main sorts of plays, histories, comedies and his most well known, tragedies. His plays include Julius Caesar, Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Midsummer’s Night Dream and Macbeth. He mostly got his inspiration from Chaucer. He uses several of Chaucer’s poems as sources of his plays. 400 years later, these world-renowned plays are still taught widely in schools and provide morals that are still relevant. Shakespeare is still relevant today as his works provide insight into human choices and experiences. His works are universal and their morals and character will always be relevant.

Shakespeare’s plays are very important in today’s society as they teach morals that help us govern the decisions we make and rightly justify our actions and intentions. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the central character, Hamlet and his uncle plot to kill each other however end up dying in the process thus portraying the moral of how revenge can be deadly. It is suitable in today’s society as Disney has adapted Hamlet into the Lion King animation, the 46th highest-grossing film of all time. This proves that it is as relevant as it was when written and targets multiple generations in realising morality. Another example is Macbeth, one of Shakespeare’s most famous plays, where the main theme is the corrupting power of unchecked ambition The story revolves around Macbeth murdering King Duncan to take the Scottish throne for himself to achieve his ambition but dies himself. This is apt to today’s society because ambition for power is not always necessarily a good thing and sometimes makes people follow a cunning path to achieve their ambition. Through the use of the above examples, Shakespeare’s plays are still relevant to modern society.

Shakespeare writes about characters that are relatable and understandable. The tragic love story of Romeo and Juliet is about a pair of star-crossed lovers who come from feuding families. The pair try to elope in secret but commit suicide in the end. This story portrays to the reader that it is acceptable to have the freedom to love whomever you wish. This is relevant in modern society as love and happiness are nurtured, along with the freedom to love whoever you love. This is shown through the metaphorical phrase “Love is heavy and light, bright and dark, hot and cold, sick and healthy, asleep and awake- it’s everything except what it is!” This explains that love is a mixture of all kinds of emotions, happiness, sadness, and excitement, and should always be relished. Shakespeare explains that love is beautiful in all forms and should be treated with utmost care. Shakespeare weaves the story in his play through the use of strong and relatable characters.

William Shakespeare is still known and relevant in modern day society for his exquisite plays and the renditions of them that still keep the story alive today. This is because Shakspeare’s plays teach great moral values and messages and have characters that are easily relatable to modern audiences. Ben Jonson once stated “Shakespeare was not of an age, but for all time!”, meaning that as long as there is love and hate, ambition and hope, dignity and loyalty and good and evil, Shakespeare’s works will always be relevant.