Category: Perspective

In discussing the Declaration of Independence and it’s effects, it is important to start at the beginning. America was under the rule of Great Britain, and up until 1776, the American colonists believed that Great Britain was doing a great job protecting them, giving them their rights, and they, the colonists in turn, offered Britain their loyalty. But, the relationship between America and Great Britain started tearing apart during the beginning of the Seven Years War. During this, “America became nearly bankrupted”(Shi/Tindall), civilians lost crops, money, their supplies etc. after the revolution. Britain began closing off and banned U.S trade. Through studying, it is clear that through these tariffs and fees on products, economic problems quickly arose. As political and economic culture changed, it was clear to Americans that there was a need for change.

Well known historical figures such as George Washington and more began voicing their opinions on what was taking place in the states. George Washington strongly was quoted to say that there was a need for “…a government by which our lives, liberty, and prosterities will be secured.” Many agreed. They believed that, “the time had come to empower the national government to bring social order and economic stability” (Shi/Tindall). During the 1780’s the colonists of America began to see that there was a crisis on hand.

As complete chaos erupted, “Alexander Hamilton began urging for a group of chosen delegates from each state to be given full powers to revise the Articles of Confederation”(Shi/Tindall). At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates began to work. These were the founding fathers. The Declaration of Independence, written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, gave the “common sense” America needed, written down on paper, stating the unity of Amerians and their need for their rights. It declared America’s official freedom from Great Britain on July 4th of 1776, and the Constitution laid down how it would all work.

Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd American president, had the hope of creating a “new America” and helping the oppressed that came to seek a new and better life, earn their rights, through the new democracy. He also wanted to unify America for the better. We can see the importance of the constitution when Jefferson is inaugurated and “it was the first democratic election in modern history that saw the orderly transfer of power from one party to another (Shi/Tindall). He wanted to work to overturn Federalist policies while urging for unity.

But, ironically Jefferson had his own ideals and as stated in the book, “bitter anti-Federalist prejudices”. As a result of this, politically speaking, America began dividing strongly. Each party had loyal followers. After the revolution, white laborers were granted the right to vote and hold office. But, they quickly were unwanted. The book states that “many among the founding generation of political leaders, especially federalists and some republicans, became openly anti-democratic, worried that men of humble origins, some uneducated, were replacing the social and political elite in legislation.” Clearly, while these men were given their rights through the constitution, there was a poor sense of equality. While trying to unify Americans, they began to deunify themselves, through prejudices.

Unfortunately, Jefferson wrote himself in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal.” When considering the arising situation of slavery, Jefferson states in the Declaration of Independence that slavery is a crime. But, he was unbelievably reliant on his own slaves and never tried to fight for their rights. Also, he didn’t allow women to be in positions of some power. He has been quoted to say that he and the public aren’t ready for women to be in such positions when they needed to be filled. Jefferson’s ideals of “common sense” were widely embraced and needed. I can assume that after the revolution everyone wanted their rights, no matter what color of their skin, or gender, or what their upbringing was. But, it turns out that there wasn’t any equality, despite the incredible advances.

Although it is clear that Jefferson was a man of inconsistencies, he did have some improvements during his presidency. Through the Lousianna purchase, he doubled the size of America, but that led to controversial issues and arguments with the settlement of the natives that lived there. Through the Lewis and Clark expedition, Jefferson sought to expand and explore even more into the Pacific Ocean. Through this expedition, many scientific and geographical advances were made.

Jefferson was soon re-elected for a second term given his achievements that he made during the first term. When rumors of war in Europe began, the American people were not appreciative of the way he responded as his relationship with Great Britain was quickly on the decline.

Throughout Thomas Jefferson’s career, there were major advances and serious controversies. Despite the negatives, Jefferson attempted to bring upon freedom and independence for the American society by writing the Declaration of Independence. After all, freedom is the most important thing us Americans can have.

Introduction

Raphael Hythloday’s description of Utopia depicts a society whose people’s behaviors and natures cannot be considered abnormal. Most, if not all the actions can be regarded as within the realms of physical possibility. Yet, the real world remains distinct from Utopia with the latter being regarded as a perfect form of the former. This, however, raises the question as to why such a disparity exists. Since Utopia is a fictional island and therefore affected by the imagination of human beings, the subjective interpretation regarding what can be constituted as an “ideal” society becomes varied. This paper sorts to present its own interpretation of Hythloday’s mythical society and provide its own opinion regarding whether such a society can be formed in reality or not.

The question of whether a Utopian society can be formed or not relies strongly on the actions of the people themselves. Development of altruistic, noble, and helpful characteristics in people helps society move closer to its Utopian goals whereas bad characteristics and behaviors take us more towards a dystopian future. This research proceeds with the assumption that most, if not all humans, possess certain characteristics that can be considered sinful, evil, or corrupt, and that such characteristics prevent human societies from naturally evolving into Utopian societies. Thus, the following thesis is presented for this research: A Utopian society of peak perfection can never be formed in real life because of the sins that affect humanity.

An Ideal Political Economy

The way the conversation between Hythloday, fictional Sir Thomas More, and his friend Peter Giles unfolds suggests an idealistic comparison between the real world and the society of Utopia. Hytholday himself insinuates that the Utopian society is superior to the European society in matters such as politics, culture, and religion (Utopia, Chapter 2). With regards to politics and the governing structure of Utopian cities, Hythloday points out its democratic monarchic form of government. The highest body of authority is that of a prince, who is elected for life by the people and can be removed if he is considered to be a tyrant against his own people. The existence of other magisterial positions such as the magistrates and Archpilarchs also highlights the power of representation of the common people of utopia. The existence of elections for these positions that occur frequently ensures that the prince and the magistrates do not consolidate power and take it away from the common people (Utopia, Chapter 4).

With regards to the cultural aspects, the Utopian society is portrayed as one that is far more merciful than the 16th century European societies. Their culture looked down upon the concept of mass enslavement and only reserved such positions for soldiers captured during wars or for people who are found guilty of serious violations. Their concept of marriage and sexuality was similar to the Christian ideologies that could be found in Europe as well. Sex and other carnal pleasures were strictly regulated, with out-of-marriage relations being prohibited (Utopia, Chapter 8). Even grants for divorces were given only after meeting very strict requirements. The Utopian society valued the importance of priests. Although suicide was considered to be something honorable to do when a person is suffering from enormous amounts of pain, if it was done without the presence of priests then they would not be given a proper funeral and simply thrown into a ditch (Utopia, Chapter 8). The Utopian society also represented a communist form of ownership where people were considered tenants and not landlords. People cyclically moved to farms to help with farming and cattle for specific periods of time.

The practice of religion in Utopia is portrayed to be tolerant, however, superiority has been declared as that of monotheistic ones who worship the all-powerful being known as “HIM”. This resembles the real-world reflection of Christianity where it might also practice tolerance for other religions but might see itself as the superior one. However, it was noted that although their monotheistic religion was similar to that of Christianity, they did not seem to believe in the opposing forces of the good and the evil as there was no mention of Hell.

The Ideal Human Being

The Utopian society has been described as a superior society to the European ones, where people use collective power in all aspects of their lives to govern their society. Some of the practices showcased by the utopians are possession of common land, ten-hour period of the day in which a human can exercise leisure, condemnation of people just lying idle and not doing anything productive even during leisure periods, the willingness to care for the sick and the injured and the willingness to perform charity work for the society. Such practices emphasize the caring and altruistic nature of human beings that have made society better. This might insinuate that they do not consider laziness, greed, and individualism as parts of an ideal society. They rarely force people to become slaves and usually force their society’s criminals to become slaves rather than being killed off. They do not care about the glory achieved in war and look down upon violence, yet they maintain an army that practices daily. This suggests the importance of pacifism but still having a strong defense. They even train their women who can protect themselves and their friends against aggressors or help in the war during times of need. They could not be considered as equal as women usually did not participate in wars, yet they are considered to be valuable members of society who are not just relegated to being mothers and wives.

Utopians also seem to be very conservative about acts of perverseness. As such, they widely condemn extramarital sex, cheating, fraud, extra-marital affairs, etc. However, the concept of marriage or sex does not seem to have a basis in any of their religion. The concept of religion seems to largely be focused on the after-life and death, where “HIM” only accepts those souls into heaven who are not sad about the fact that they are no longer living. The different ideologies formed based on religion are tolerated. People are allowed to convert people to their religion only through persuasion and not by any other force. This portrays the importance of diplomacy rather than force in the Utopian society.

Hythloday describes the Utopian society as those who preach tolerance, non-violence, and communal living. However, he also describes it’s the origins of the fictional island, which was not Utopia, or even an island once. The area was first conquered by Utopus, or Abraxas, who defeated all the native societies that were divided based on religion (Utopia, Chapter 2). He used ‘divide and conquer tactics by helping one society to defeat others. The natives chose to fight alone than combine their strength against his forces. Once conquered, he forced his own people to dig a 15 miles long channel that separated the area from the main continent. Such portrayals showcase that humans weren’t altruistic, communal, or religiously tolerant from the beginning. It was Utopus who enforced such concepts on the island and forced people to showcase empathy and respect certain degrees of equality. The attempt to cut off the island from the rest of the main continent seems to have been done in order to isolate the Utopian society. This insinuates that Utopus wanted to protect the society away from external invaders who simply wanted to conquer their cities. As such, it can be said that Utopia does not consider its humans to be naturally peaceful and benevolent. Whatever the practice was imparted as learning from the early founders of the cities, that had remained.

Critical Evaluation

Utopia can be considered as the peak of perfection which is considered a standard to achieve for every society. However, it was not such a society from the beginning of time. It was made that way after Utopus conquered other non-perfect societies and transformed them into a society of peak perfection. However, there were certain facets of the society that may still not be considered as qualifying to be “ideal.” Despite having more respect in society, women are still subservient to men. Thus, the concept of gender equality, a key factor for what can be considered an ideal society, is missing. There still remains the presence of slaves even though they are treated better than their European counterparts during the 16th century. Married couples were bound to each other and could not get divorced unless for exceptional cases such as infidelity or extreme perverseness. A mutual separation was scorned. Sex was also regulated amongst the people where men and women could not have intimate relations without being married. Such restrictions, by modern standards, can be considered negative factors toward achieving peak perfection in society.

The concept of Utopia also does not consider the presence of sins. Utopians are described as charitable, caring, and communal. However, the reason for the absence of any forms of sins such as treachery, lust, greed, etc. is not mentioned. Such factors cannot be ignored in modern times. Utopians discouraged people from remaining idle. However, in real life, it would be difficult to stop some people from idling away. Similarly, people, especially those considered as the society’s elite, would never agree to go toil on farmlands for any length of time. Hythloday talks about punishments for people who commit sins or repeat their offenses. Such descriptions insinuate that the Utopian society itself is not completely absolved from the sins of humanity. However, it has not been mentioned why people do not commit such sins in larger numbers. Political manipulation to gain more power and carnal perverseness are some of the negative aspects of humanity that have been observed in every society and there is no reason to suggest why such aspects are not present in a Utopian society. Lack of their mention also results in absence of ways to depict how to regulate such actions.

There are certain arguments that could be made regarding how the concept of Utopia is analyzed. This paper has largely analyzed the Utopia as described by Hythloday. However, it is also important to understand the purpose of introducing the concept of Utopia. Sir Thomas More tried to show a society that was practicing what can be described as the most liberal and morally righteous actions of its time. As such, the concept of Utopia should be analyzed from the perspective of every new generation, where the mythical society would always represent the very best ethics and morals of such a generation. Thus, though More’s Utopia might not have had the concept of gender equality, the 21st century’s portrayal of Utopia should include them and many other prevalent aspects of social justice.

It can also be argued that people’s unwillingness to abstain from sinning should not mean that a Utopia cannot be achieved. It is theoretically possible for humanity to stop committing sins against other people and to start a society based on communal living and democratic representation, regardless of whether we want it or not. Such arguments are well justified but are still unrealistic. The 21st century’s standards for what can be deemed as an “idea” is far higher than they were in the 16th century. Thus, if we couldn’t reach More’s version of Utopia, it would be almost impossible to create the 21st century’s version of Utopia. Second, although it is theoretically possible, it would never turn real because humanity would likely never willingly stop committing sins. Thus, the impossibility of humanity to stop committing sins inhibits the possibility of them reaching the state of peak perfection. One of the final issues of the concept of Utopia is the end of progress. If humanity reaches a point where it has reached peak perfection, society would have nothing to progress or develop further on. It would have reached it’s ultimate and there would be nothing more to develop or achieve. Such finality seems to be impractical as humanity has still a lot to learn and develop.

Conclusion

There lies the issue of subjectivity when it comes to considering what is peak perfection. More’s Utopia, with all its above-mentioned flaws, cannot be considered a society of peak perfection by modern standards. Unless there exists an efficient system of combating social evils and inequalities, all societies would be considered as having Augustine’s model of perfection rather than a Utopian model of perfection (Video: Lecture 4).

As such, the thesis of this paper stands true for the near future. However, it still remains to be seen whether this thesis would hold true in the far future. With the ever-growing technological advancements and biological modifications, human society may reach a stage where they could manipulate the biology that would prevent them from doing bad things and finally live in a peaceful society. However, such a future might also entail a different version of Utopia which might not be reached by simply eliminating all the sins

America Post World War II

Following World War II many outcomes resulted from key components which would steer the nation in a path of improvements that would better the society as a unit. The end of World War II brought various changes that made for adaptation of the United States of America. Most of these changes led to benefits and bettering society and its people, while others had adverse effects. Numerous policies, programs, and movements that were created post-war transformed American society. The purpose of the essay is to discuss important topics like suburbanization, the GI Bill, racial experiences, the automobile, the effects of consumerism on society and gender spheres, and youth culture that led to the transformation of American society after World War II.

Suburbanization

Following the war, one of the initial changes was suburbanization. Suburbanization is a movement that involves mass migration, usually a shift from busy urban areas to rural suburbs, where numerous families move out of inner cities (Nicolaides & Wiese, 2017). This shift from urban areas to the suburbs was a result of the demobilization of individuals who were in service returning from the war, along with the number of communities that were being developed through mass production (Nicolaides & Wiese, 2017). The development of communities and cities became a trend, and this led to a decrease in population in central cities and an increase in population in the suburbs (Nicolaides & Wiese, 2017). Economically, the development of the suburban areas brought in money because of the new businesses, shopping complexes, stores, etc., that followed suit (Nicolaides & Wiese, 2017). Many people in society viewed the suburbs as the American dream, which brought about migration and immigration. Urbanization was a starting point for other changes that were brought about as a result of post-war initiatives, which were the creation of the automobile, highways, and consumerism (Nicolaides & Wiese, 2017).

GI Bill

Another major change that helped to produce a new and improved American society is known as the GI Bill of Rights. This is a government-issued program that was brought about following World War II to help veterans since a large number of soldiers and service workers found it very difficult to reenter the workforce after their return from the war (Edmondson, 2002). This new bill helped to establish veteran hospitals, made low-interest mortgages available, and granted stipends that would help to cover the cost of tuition and other expenses for veterans who wished to attend college or trade schools (Edmondson, 2002). It also granted unemployment through its unemployment compensation program (Edmondson, 2002). Later, there were modifications that the GI Bill underwent that would help to distinguish between active duty soldiers and reserve veterans. It continues to receive changes, but initially, the bill started post-World War II in hopes of securing the lives of many veterans as they returned home while also boosting American morals.

Automobiles

Since suburbanization was so popular, the need for an automobile became apparent. Living in the suburbs or even moving to the suburbs was easier for those who had a vehicle that could get them to their destination at any time wherever they needed to go. After World War II, the auto industry, automobiles, and roads all came together, which made advancements towards urbanization. Even though the use of automobiles picked up after World War II, in the beginning amid the Great Depression, the shortage of materials and not having enough individuals in the workforce led to the slow production of cars. Once the war ended and soldiers along with their families began to migrate outward production in the auto industry began booming. Creations like the Interstate Highway System produced usage of the automobile more than ever since it helped with traveling and getting people to any destination, they wished, within the range that it enabled them to get.

Gender Spheres, Racial Experiences, and Youth Culture

Gender spheres, racial experiences, and youth culture all were affected after the war. For example, before the war happened women would be stay-at-home moms and solely care for their children while their husbands went to work to provide financially for their families, but once the men went away to join the war effort women had to begin working in factories and finding other jobs to bring in money and be able to provide a home and food on the table for their kids. These factories were how materials needed for the war were produced, and mostly minority groups and lower socioeconomic class women worked in these factories. Upper-class women usually remained at home. There were instances where at times women would help to serve in the war effort, for six months, as nurses to help nurse the wounded back to good health or to give men a break. After the war, women were asked to quit their jobs and go back to being stay-at-home moms, but they refused and were resistant because they became independent and liked it (Howard, 2016). Most of these women were eventually fired, so that men returning home from war would have jobs available to them (Howard, 2016).

After the war, individuals from various minority groups like African American, Hispanic, and Native Americans, were still not granted their rights. They were the sole targets for being discriminated against for employment and being able to own property. African Americans who left for the war returned home to foreclosure notices, Chinese Americans were denied citizenship and couldn’t find work, Japanese Americans had their wealth stripped from them during the war, and were sent to internment camps, and Mexican Americans were given very little work opportunities.

Family and the idea of a stable and close-knit family unit declined after the war, introducing youth cultures. The youth became reckless and dangerous because of the lessened idea of unity. The use of new drugs, music, clothing, makeup, etc., was presented through adolescents, and it was described as being juvenile behavior because these new components were used to rebel and there were no strict rules or organization given by the parents and other adults.

References

1. Edmondson, E. (2002). Without comment or controversy: The G.I. Bill and Catholic colleges. Church History, 71, 820-847
2. Howard, A. (2016). Women in the Services – The Changing Roles of Women in World War II. Agora, 51(4), 50.
3. Nicolaides, B., & Wiese, A. (2017). Suburbanization in the United States after 1945. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History.

The term cultural genocide alone is quite big and sparks a lot of emotions. The fact that a section of people considered their culture to be superior to that of the other is wrong and shows a lack of respect. The Canadian Aboriginals have undergone many extreme experiences at the expense of their culture and their practices, some of which continue to affect them to date. That would explain why they always appear marginalized despite Canada being considered one of the most civilized countries in the world. The positive and negative outcomes of the residential school system were severe and despite the efforts of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the effects of the residential school system will be felt for seven generations.

One of the important things to consider is the role that history plays in society. The residential school system subjected the aboriginals to many negative experiences, which they share amongst themselves as part of their history. That means that there will always be a negative attitude towards the government and the church towards subjecting them to cultural genocide. For instance, the aboriginals are still marginalized, despite the existence of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That means that despite the efforts to make things different, they will continue to harbor ill feelings especially since they still do not fit in the modern Canadian society. According to the report by the Indigenous Foundation, the aboriginals despite having access to public education, have continued to face discrimination from the non-aboriginal students (Hanson, 2009). That means that the feelings of segregation and violation of culture will continue to exist due to the continued discrimination. That also shows that the improvements have been based on institutions rather than the society. Being accepted in public schools is one thing but being discriminated against in the same by the other students is likely to remind the aboriginals that they do not belong.

Given the fact that the residential school system is part of Canadian history, it will continue to be learned about and the sad part is that it mostly matters to the aboriginals. This is seen based on how surprised the non-aboriginals are when interacting with the areas in which the aboriginals live (“First Contact,” n.d.). The fact that such atrocities can happen against the members of one community and the other communities fail to get in touch with the experience is likely to make the Truth and Reconciliation efforts futile. Part of the healing process usually involves both sides acknowledging and showing some remorse for an act of aggression. In this case, the history mainly remains with the Aboriginals, unlike the new generation Canadians who rarely have an idea of what the residential school systems did to the Aboriginals.

In addition, the biggest challenge to the Truth and Reconciliation effort is that the residential school system was conducted in a manner that targeted the Aboriginals. This created a perception that the Aboriginals needed to be changed since their culture was considered primitive. Such perceptions can still cause some insecurities among the Aboriginals, thereby failing to trust the intentions of the other communities even in future generations. They most likely have their systems through which they narrate their history, thereby making the younger Aboriginals grow up while being skeptical of the Euro Canadians. For instance, Hanson mentions that the Aboriginals suffered both physical and sexual abuse in the system, thereby making such stories create a perception of mistrust among the Aboriginals and other communities in the country (2009). That means that it will take longer for the Aboriginals to gain trust in the intentions of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Therefore, the intentions of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission are good but then due to the atrocities that were committed, it is unlikely that the changes will be immediately felt. Also, since the Aboriginals are extremely cultural people, they are likely to hold on to their histories and heritage, which will continue to expose them to social segregation. That will make the reconciliation efforts take longer than expected. That shows why it is likely to last for seven generations. This should also consider the fact that the newly formed segregation that the younger Aboriginals face is also likely to make the situation worse. Eventually, the efforts of the Truth and Reconciliation efforts will be felt but it will take longer due to the complexity of the issue.

Shirley Jackson, well known for her 200 plus short stories, 6 novels, and 2 memoirs was a very profound author, one of her most popular short stories “The Lottery” (1948) enlightens us of how some people can commit evil acts towards their peers showing no remorse and just to keep a tradition going. Her argument is supported throughout the story because multiple acts are put on to show how important this tradition is to them. Shirley wrote this to show how far people would go to keep a tradition going. The audience Jackson writes for is teenagers and adults, but not readers too young to learn about death.

When you think of winning a lottery most people think of winning a grand prize, but in this case, it is the total opposite and can end very drastically. It has no designated nor positive purpose and throughout the short story instead of wanting to end the lottery, everyone wants to keep it a tradition. Old Man Warner and other characters from the short story at many points state that the lottery should not be put off even though in some places it is. When Warner found out about this his first words were, “ Pack of fools” he also says, “Listening to the young folks, nothing’s good enough for them.” This gives off the perception that the author believes that there is no problem in harming innocent people.

Jackson opens the story by showing that this ritual is practiced by everyone in town and has been going on for decades now. The story shows how the children of the town were just as much a part of the ritual as everyone else. Once they had gotten out of school “Bobby Martin gathered some of the smoothest and roundest rocks and his peers proceeded to do the same” as if they had been excitedly waiting for this day to come. Equally important, Old Man Warner continuously talks about how he has survived the lottery for 77 years, this goes to show how long this ritual has been in existence and also how many years he has survived it. It is very disturbing knowing that even children at younger ages participated in these brutal acts.

To say nothing of it seems as though in this small village every family is for themselves. As the story continues to escalate and the lottery starts names are drawn and it has come down to the Hutchinson family Tessie, the wife of Bill Hutchinson starts to act out of control in fear of knowing that either or husband or one of her children is about to be stoned to death. Her husband acts out against his wife telling her to “shut up” when she is trying to defend him once she finds out that her family’s name is the chosen one. In the end, Tessie ends up being the chosen one. Everyone gathers their stones as they begin to stone Tessie, including some of the women she was close with within the village. Mrs. Delacroix and Tessie had an entire conversation before the lottery had begun, but in the end, Mrs. Declacroix ended up playing a part in the stoning of Tessie. In the text, it states that “Mrs. Delacroix selected a stone so large that she had to pick it up with both hands” This just goes to show that people cannot be trusted because even your friends will turn their back against one another. Both quotes are examples of direct evidence, meaning it requires no justification and the evidence alone is enough to prove the statement. Your closest friends can sometimes be one’s worst enemy and you may never know.

All in all crime or hatred ness should not be committed by any human being for no reason. Throughout the short story, Jackson shows how a tradition is so important in this village that they are willing to go to whatever extent possible to keep it alive. This is commonly known as a sociopath and many of the people in the village are direct examples of just that. Violence should never be the key especially when there has been no crime committed.

Introduction

The animated film ‘Zootopia’ offers a thought-provoking exploration of various social issues within its captivating storyline. Released in 2016, the film presents a fictional city where anthropomorphic animals coexist, providing a platform to address real-world social challenges. This essay aims to examine the social issues depicted in ‘Zootopia’ and their relevance to contemporary society.

Stereotyping and Discrimination

One of the central themes in ‘Zootopia’ is the pervasive nature of stereotypes and discrimination. The film portrays a society where animals are divided into predator and prey categories, leading to biases and prejudices. Through the characters of Judy Hopps and Nick Wilde, ‘Zootopia’ highlights the harmful effects of stereotyping and the importance of overcoming prejudices to build a more inclusive society. The film prompts viewers to reflect on the impact of stereotypes in their own lives and encourages empathy towards individuals who face discrimination.

Racism and Inequality

Another significant social issue addressed in ‘Zootopia’ is racism and inequality. The film uses the predator-prey divide as a metaphor for racial divisions within society. It explores the experiences of marginalized groups, emphasizing the need to challenge systemic racism and create equal opportunities for all. ‘Zootopia’ encourages viewers to reflect on their own biases and actively work towards dismantling racial inequalities.

Corruption and Abuse of Power

‘Zootopia’ also sheds light on the issue of corruption and abuse of power. The film showcases instances where those in positions of authority exploit their status for personal gain, compromising the well-being of the community. By addressing this social issue, ‘Zootopia’ highlights the importance of holding individuals accountable and promoting transparency in governance. It sparks discussions about the consequences of unchecked power and the need for ethical leadership.

Social Divisions and Stereotypes

The film examines how social divisions and stereotypes contribute to the fragmentation of communities. ‘Zootopia’ portrays various neighborhoods within the city, each associated with specific stereotypes and assumptions. Through this portrayal, the film challenges viewers to question their own preconceived notions and consider the consequences of divisive thinking. It emphasizes the importance of fostering understanding and unity across diverse communities.

Gender Equality and Breaking Barriers

‘Zootopia’ touches upon gender equality and breaking societal barriers. The character of Judy Hopps, a determined rabbit aspiring to become a police officer, challenges the stereotype that certain professions are only suited for specific genders. The film encourages viewers to recognize the importance of equal opportunities and the potential for individuals to thrive irrespective of their gender.

Conclusion

‘Zootopia’ serves as an informative and engaging platform to explore a range of social issues affecting contemporary society. By addressing topics such as stereotyping, discrimination, racism, corruption, and social divisions, the film encourages viewers to reflect on their own biases and prejudices. ‘Zootopia’ prompts conversations about the importance of empathy, equality, and social justice. Through its imaginative storytelling and relatable characters, the film inspires individuals to actively participate in creating a more inclusive and harmonious society.

In order to grasp a full-bodied understanding of American medicine, one must use a variety of theoretical approaches because American medicine not only is the study of science but the study of society, social constructs, and socialization. In other words, one must approach American medicine with the mind of a sociologist because health is social, because it is affected by social influences such as socioeconomic status, neighborhood, life stage, etc. An example of this ‘social health’ phenomenon is the difference between societal preferences of body type. In the United States, a slim body is labeled as healthy, while in Senegal, bulkier bodies are deemed as healthy. However, in reality, a person’s true healthy state can be measured more accurately by blood tests, measures, etc. Another example displaying the social nature of health in America is medicalization. For example, only fifty years ago doctors believed addictive diseases like alcoholism were just the result of bad character, rather than what we now know as a serious disease. Medicalization changes both the meaning of the condition and the individual at hand. Someone who has once been pushed aside and labeled as weak, crazy, or stupid could be recognized a century later as someone who endured a serious disease. Two theoretical approaches that can be useful in understanding American medicine are structural functionalism and conflict theory. Although both provide different perspectives, when used hand in hand, they are useful in obtaining a rich understanding.

The structural-functionalist perspective argues that health is the core of a stable society, and therefore, sickness is a ‘sanctioned form of deviance’. In other words, disease is a threat to social order, so the healthcare system must return patients back to health to keep society stable. In practice, this perspective can be used to logically conclude a sick person will inevitably make society unstable (even in micro ways), and therefore, to ensure a stable society, they must be nursed back to health. This perspective offers a macro lens because it focuses on the mechanics of society in order to promote social stability and solidarity. For example, a pro hockey player who just shattered his leg was prescribed opioids by his doctor to monitor the pain he endures. He eventually becomes addicted to these pain meds after his leg heals. Based on a structural-functionalist perspective, this problem arose from a hole in society (in this case, it is the prescription of heavy opioids), and it must be resolved to ensure social stability by providing the man with medical treatment. Talcott Parsons (1951) coined the term the ‘sick role’, which means anyone labeled with this term led patterns of expectations for people who are sick (like sleeping all day or eating soup) and expectations for the one caring for them, like someone providing soup, medication, blankets, etc.

On the other hand, the conflict theory perspective is used to expose and analyze the inequalities within society. In terms of American medicine, this could take the form of healthcare resources being unequally distributed or available across the United States due to location, individual’s socioeconomic status, and more. Critical theorists argue that capitalist society and the pursuit of profit rather than human well-being leads to the commodification of health. Powerful people in large companies have a tremendous influence on the current healthcare system and even the future of the system by deciding what research to fund. Furthermore, conflict may arise among different groups seeking access to these resources. In practical application, like analyzing drug and alcohol addiction, conflict theory would use the logic that people of lower socioeconomic status have far less access to healthcare resources than those in power, and thus are more likely to be labeled as the problem rather than the addictive disease being the problem. The conflict theory perspective is used in various contexts. In terms of medicine, it can be used when studying social epidemiology, the study of the causes and distribution of diseases. For instance, “The availability of doctors and nurses in low-income countries is one-tenth that of nations with a high income. Challenges in access to medical education and access to patients exacerbate this issue for would-be medical professionals in low-income countries” (World Health Organization 2011). While health is a commodity, individuals of low socioeconomic status are far more likely to experience illness than wealthy individuals due to deprivation amplification. Living in food deserts, being exposed to diseases, and severe elements, or working physically strenuous jobs all day can influence the probability of illness tremendously. Conflict theory helps provide awareness of these inequalities that exist within the United States.

Both structural functionalism and conflict theory offer great strengths, while also having some weaknesses. First, functionalism assumes the individual that plays the sick role voluntarily accepted that role, however, this may not be the case. For example, as a child when I was sick, I was okay with it because I knew it meant I could sleep all day, but now if I get sick, I really just want to continue my normal lifestyle because I know I would have to catch up on school work. Functionalism also tends to ignore solving conflicts or inequalities within societies, focusing more on just ensuring the stability of the society. On the other hand, conflict theory has been criticized for solely focusing on revolutionary change within society, rather than stability as the goal.

While the structural-functionalist perspective focuses on how health plays a part in the stability of a society, the conflict theory perspective focuses on the inequalities that exist, and the lack of recourse people of a lower socioeconomic status experience. Both perspectives have their shortcomings, but when used hand-in-hand, they can provide a rich lens and can even be helpful in paving the future of humanity. We must understand the inequalities that exist in our society, even if they don’t affect us personally, because of the greater good of humanity beyond our lifetimes. We must also understand the importance of societal stability in order to have a society that can lead future generations.

The world can be seen differently, as it is only a matter of perspective. Some individuals think that we live in a breathtaking world, and some may see the world as a place of suffering. I see the world as a mesmerizing place that is filled with wonders and emotions that are changing at every second. Sources of joy are found anywhere in this world, one just has to overlook the negative things and have a positive point of view towards the world. The world conspires us to be joyful and happy, how can one be bored, frustrated, or angered by this world of infinite possibilities?

I believe that great things will come around if we do good in whatever we do. In short, I believe in karma as it is logical and people will receive good things when they do good. On top of that, believing in karma has also improved me as an individual to thrive on doing good and behaving morally in this world. Of course, we shouldn’t have expectations from people to return the favor or reward us when we do good, but it’s a healthy thought to think that we might receive something good in the future, whether it be a favor or something materialistic.

I also believe that we humans should help each other whenever we can, as there are lots of less fortunate people in this world, the fortunate ones should lend a hand to help these people out as much as they can. Furthermore, helping each other out could unite us as humans and we could all live in a much more peaceful world together. I believe in this because our world is becoming more violent as time goes on. Nowadays, whenever countries try to settle a problem, they tend to do it through abuse and violence and cause conflict between society and government. I hope humans could live together and unite peacefully for as long as possible.

I like honest and trustworthy people as they do not hesitate to tell me their opinion about myself or something I do. These people are the ones I would like to hold close to in my life because they are people that I value. Everyone is afraid of the truth as they are terrified of it and could affect how they think or change how they act. I believe that truth is something we must think about for a long time and ask around to gain more information on it as everyone has a different perspective towards a subject. Therefore, my thoughts can be defined as true as I have a biased thought myself. I would ask my friends for their opinions or someone directly to obtain the truth about the subject.

My mother has influenced my life and thoughts a lot as she has given me her opinion whenever I ask for her opinion. She has changed the way I think about the world and taught me to be more mature in everything I do. She has always taught me to be disciplined no matter how stressed out I am. My mother is one of the people who has strongly shaped my thinking and how I view the world. Perspectives and opinions have shaped my thinking throughout my life. As my life progresses, there are different scenarios where something has happened, there are the thoughts of others that I have never thought of, and their opinions have changed the way I think. Now, before I say something, I will put myself in someone else’s shoes to have a different opinion and way of thinking about my words, as it could cause a misunderstanding.

However, these words from me could have an opposing perspective towards it, as there are both sides to everything. Different individuals will always have different perspectives and opinions on a subject.

Speaking about what is the purpose of learning, I would like to focus on the approach of Gert Biesta. In the European Journal of Education, Research, Development and Policy, Gert Biesta tries to argue the purpose of education in the context of a discussion of the problematic impact of the language of learning. He suggests that the term ‘learning’ does not say much about what the learning is ‘about’ and ‘for’. To him, the purpose of education should not just be about just learning, which students can do from anywhere, not necessarily school, especially with the Internet being made available, but that they learn something, from someone, and for a reason.

Biesta opines that education should be oriented into three main domains of purpose, and these domains are subjectification, socialization, and qualification. Qualification is the provision of knowledge and skills that justify schooling. Socialization is the act of behaving in certain ways that represent the culture, traditions, and beliefs system of a place or a system. Subjectification is better stated as awakening a want to strive to live one’s life in the world, without considering oneself in the center of the world; it’s about arousing a desire to try to live one’s life in the world, without considering oneself in the center of the world. He sees it from the perspective that school provides the opportunity to slow down, attempt, fail, try again, and fail better. Biesta sees subjectification as the quality of a person.

Secondly, he contends that three trends that have emerged as part of the ongoing professionalization of teaching and can be found in various manifestations and facets of the school system – treating students as clients, being accountable, and replacing subjective judgment with scientific proof – are undermining rather than enhancing opportunities for teacher professionalism.

Another point made in his argument is the central role of judgment. Biesta believes that there should be a judgment of what is to be achieved in all three domains of the purpose of education to create a balance. He identified that sometimes teachers make judgments on what domain a child should focus on at a particular period, and with this, there should be trade-offs between the three domains. He opined that teachers need to make judgments on their pedagogy, curriculum, class organization, etc. To him, education sometimes needs to be flexible and tailored towards individualized learning, and sometimes it needs to be strict and structured. Education can sometimes focus on the student and other times on the teacher or the curriculum.

Gert Biesta’s purpose of education, especially in the subjectification domain, is rooted in the works of Homer Lane, whose account was given by A. S. Neill, the founder of Summerhill School. Lane founded his school to provide young boys and girls from ‘tough’ backgrounds (often criminal records) a second, third, and occasionally fourth opportunity. He achieved this not by punishment, behavioral interventions, or a tight ‘re-education’ program, but rather through freedom. Rather than taking away his students’ freedom, he returned it to them in the hope that they would connect with it and turn it into their ‘own’ freedom.

Another author who put freedom as specified in Biesta’s subjectification was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, He stated that an educator’s job is to shield education and children from significant outside pressures. “It is good as it leaves the hands of the Author of things; everything degenerates in the hands of man”, says the famous opening statement of his ‘Emile, or On Education’. He argues how education can help children and young people to obtain ‘sovereignty’ considering the societal and natural forces they are subjected to.

When an inquiry into the purpose and quality of education was initiated in November 2015, Robin Alexander wrote a report to the House of Commons Education Committee. The review consisted of ten subjects and 100 questions. Five of the questions questioned the purpose of education, and the following were the goals. “What is the purpose of primary education? Considering the country and society in which our children are growing up, what individual, social, cultural, economic, and other situations and needs should this period of education be primarily focused on? What are the basic values and ideals that it should uphold and promote? How far can a national system reflect and respect the values and aspirations of the many different communities – cultural, ethnic, religious, political, economic, regional, and local – to which it purportedly caters? How far ahead is it conceivable or sensible to look when imagining the future purposes and shape of this stage of education?” (Alexander, p.523, 2010). At the launch of the inquiry, the Chairman of the Education Committee said: “In this inquiry we want to ask the question, what is education for? … Is it, for example, to prepare our young people for the world of work? Is it to ready our children for adulthood and provide them with the skills to lead fulfilling lives? Is it to provide them all with broad academic knowledge, based on a shared culture and values?” (Carmichael, 2015). The findings suggested that education should pursue all of these purposes and in so doing eschew the common tendency to treat them as mutually exclusive. He criticized the recent policy about the national curriculum that has concentrated on the first of the purposes at the expense of the others. He opines that the present policy produced a curriculum that rightly prioritizes literacy and numeracy, but is ambivalent about science while treating the arts and humanities as desirable but inessential; that elevates the basic skills of reading, writing, and calculating over those of orally communicating, relating successfully to others, solving problems and striving for the common good; that pays more attention to children’s test performance in a limited range of capacities than their development as rounded individuals; and that has little to say about education’s role in addressing pressing national and global challenges such as cultural diversity, poverty, inequality, social fragmentation, climate change, and sustainability. Alexander and his team saw the aims of education from three broad perspectives: the individual; self, others, and the wider world; learning, knowing, and doing.

The purpose of education as outlined by Gert Biesta has tried to investigate the real reason for education rather than the problematic idea that education is about learning and teaching is the facilitation of learning, but see the teleological character of education and create a balance amongst the three domains as he suggested.

In December 2018, the Australian Federal Minister for Education announced an impending revision of the Melbourne Declaration, the document which sets out the aims of the goals of education in Australia. Don Carter in his research article ‘Restoring Purpose: Applying Biesta’s three functions to the Melbourne Declaration’ advocates the use of Biesta’s three purposes as an interpretive lens for the next iteration of the Melbourne Declaration to ensure attention is afforded to all three purposes, particularly subjectification. To him, Biesta’s three purposes – ‘qualification’, ‘socialization’, and ‘subjectification’ – should be utilized as an interpretive framework to identify the functions as embedded in the key Australian educational document: the Melbourne Declaration. The application of these purposes provides insight into the “multidimensionality of educational purpose” (Biesta, 2013, p.128), allowing the multiple purposes of education as embedded in the Declaration. And by doing so, this analysis represents the extension of Biesta’s work into an Australian context, and through using the purposes as an interpretive framework, provides new knowledge by illuminating the educational purposes inherent in the document. The purpose of Don Carter’s paper is to reveal the extent to which Biesta’s three purposes of education (qualification, socialization, and subjectification) are present in the Melbourne Declaration.

It is worth noting that Gert Biesta’s three purposes have received both acceptance by some schools of thought and rejections by others. Personally, I believe Biesta’s purpose of education will spur changes in education policies gradually around the world to focus on the aims he highlighted. This will bring about a shift in how educators see themselves and the role of the learner and policymakers.

Philosophy is what leads us to see the truth as a whole. Being able to philosophize lets us see through what is true and not. Through philosophy, we are able to ‘see’ the whole truth and the absolute truth. It is the search for truth not as a collective concept, but as a whole. Philosophy gives us a better hold of what is reality and it gives us a higher idea or form of thinking.

As I have learned from the poem ‘The Blind Men and the Elephant’, views and opinions will always vary, but the existence of absolute truth will always be there. There may be someone who is ignorant, but it does not excuse him of what is the absolute truth. As presented in the poem, the blind men had a collective idea of what an elephant is, but even if they merge it and accept their ideas as an elephant, the objects or concepts they merged do not equal the whole of an elephant. With that being said, knowing the absolute truth means understanding and seeing it as a whole.

From the lesson of insight by Ferriols, insight is what enables us to ‘see’ with our minds. It allows us to have a better grasp of reality. Relating it to the poem ‘The Blind Men and the Elephant’, having an insight into what an elephant is will let the blind men ‘see’ through the concepts or ideas they had. It will allow them to realize that even if they had collective ideas, it is not enough to create a whole elephant. With those ideas, they could now have an insight into what an elephant is. Insight helps us ‘see’ through everything beyond our senses. There are some things that our senses may not perceive well, but through insight, we can fathom what we are experiencing.

Plato’s allegory of the cave presents to us how choosing to be ignorant or a finder of truth has a huge difference. The symbolism of the allegory leads us to realize that knowing the truth is a personal journey. Even if we escape the ‘cave’ that symbolizes our superficial reality, we still could not think for others. The allegory also presents that empirical truth is just not enough to have a whole grasp of the truth. It tells us that experience is not everything. We have to have the insight to realize and to know that there is so much more beyond the experiences we have. We also need to have a rational way of thinking to balance everything out.

In conclusion, philosophy is more than just thinking alone or experiencing alone. Philosophy is a balance of both in order to have a better grasp of what the truth is. There will always be different views and opinions of what truth is, but through our insight and our experiences we could ‘see’ through those views to extract what is true and what is not. Philosophy, overall, is a way or a form of thinking. It is done with the support of our experiences, which is empirical. It is also done with the support of our insight, which is logical reasoning.