Extraordinarily Wrong.

Ulysses Handy walked into his friends home and shot two men named Darren Christian and Daniel Varo. Almost directly after, Handy turned his gun on a complete stranger, Lindy Cochran, and killed her. When he was questioned about his motives in court, he said "She didn't say a damn word. She was shellshocked." He elaborated by saying that her freight didn't set him back at all. He explained saying, "I feel there are two kinds of people in the world—us and them. Predator and prey. Well, I'm damn sure not no prey". This man felt no remorse for his crime. To this day, he still believes he is above the law, and that his pervious actions were not wrong. This follows the theory talked about in Fyodor Dostoyevsky's, Crime and Punishment, and the character, Raskolnikov, and his 'Extraordinary Man Theory'. The extraordinary man theory states that humankind is split into two groups: the "ordinary", and "extraordinary". Raskolnikov believes that the ordinary group has the sole purpose of being the material to which society should be formed from. The extraordinary group has the right to transgress and evade the restrictions of the law. This group believes they can get away with anything, without going punished. So how does this relate to Handy's story? In Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov, much like Handy, believed he was not wrong in the murder of an innocent person. Raskolnikov thought he was one of these superior men, but soon began to question this as the story progressed. Similarly, I don't think Raskolnikov would say Ulysses Handy was anywhere near the status of an extraordinary man. In fact, Raskolnikov thought men like Newton, Napoleon, and Mahomet fell under this superior category. Nonetheless, the issue still rises that some people in our world today think they are excused form the law. These people believe they can commit any crime, and it is okay because they are "extraordinary". In result, crime rate increases, and people are faced with the challenge as to addressing this misconception. I believe every man, whatever color, race, religion, etcetera, falls under the same responsibilities to obey and respect the law. No one is above, and no one is below. This being said, Handy, Raskolnikov, and whoever else thinks they have some sort of excuse to escape the rules laid out for us as society, could not be any more wrong. Extraordinarily wrong.

Nature And Nurture: Good and Evil

Robert Louis Stevenson's, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, illustrates the concept of good and evil in human nature. This brings up the question as to how someone would become purely "good" or viciously "evil". Are they born with it? Have they picked the trait up form those around them? John Locke, an English philosopher during the Enlightenment, came up with a theory for how someone would become themselves. So, in this case, could Locke's theory also apply here? I believe yes. Locke's theory, 'The Tabula Rasa' or 'The Blank Slate', states that people are not born with previous knowledge. All knowledge and personality comes from experience or perception throughout life. Therefore, I say someone cannot be born good or bad. They can certainly become this way through tough upbringing, abusive childhoods, or some life experience that could influence such bad behaviors. In Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Dr. Jekyll contemplates that his dark side has always been there, but by supernaturally separating his good from evil and allowing these events to occur, he is supporting the claim that evil could be made worse form occurrences happening throughout ones life. On the other hand though, Dr. Jekyll does imply that his evil has always been inside him, it was just well hidden for most of his life. Whether or not he means by birth, I am not sure. Nonetheless, the issue is addressed throughout the story. In fact, I think Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde effectively demonstrates the debate of Locke's Tabula Rasa. In society today, this debate is still a hot topic of discussion, especially in the field of modern science and psychology. An article in Psychology Today, Nature vs nurture: the debate rages on, states that recently, there has been more research on the brain indicating that sociopathy could be biologically based. The author, Samantha Smithstein Psy.D, believes "It remains difficult to stomach the idea that kids are sometimes born with biological factors that cause them to turn out a certain way". In this example, Smithstein supports the nature debate. I found the article very interesting and noticed similarities between Stevenson's underlying themes, and Smithsteins claims. This debate doesn't plan on stopping soon, whether Locke or Smithstein are correct. Until more research is completed, the world might never really know if good and evil is created through nature or nurture.

Forced Marriages are Still Too Common.

Specifically in the Middle East, forced marriages are often found in today's society. In the novel, A Thousand Splendid Suns, one of the main protagonists was forced into marriage with an older male stranger. The marriage between Laila and Rasheed is organized by her own father. The two even have a 17 year age difference between them. As extreme as this seems to us, it is not uncommon to others. So why are forced marriages still happening? 17-year-old Humaira Taiba lives in the Middle East currently and is attempting to get out of an engagement arranged by her grandfather when she was just 1 month old, which shouldn't have existed in the first place. Most of these marriages start to end a dispute or to acquire money in a family, and are never based off of actual love between a man and a women. In my opinion, a marriage should be between two people who love one another. The United Nations Children's Fund states that around "57 percent of marriages in Afghanistan involve girls below the legal age of 16". A Thousand Splendid Suns addresses this occurrence to call attention to the serious subject.  Recently, in Afghanistan, a woman was forced to marry her rapist and have his baby. She did this to pay for her daughters future. This is unacceptable. Women’s rights activists say that forced marriages deny women any education or any bit of an independent life. This links back to our previously studied topics of independence for women, in stories like The Awakening, Yellow Wallpaper, and A Room of Ones Own. This is a serious issue and should not be taken lightly. By being denied these rights, women are taught to be submissive and obedient to their male or superior counterparts. This teaching can only be changed if these rights that were taken away, are fought for.

Can the Need for Independence be Excessive?

People all around the world are fascinated by the idea of independence. This desired freedom allows someone the right to speak their mind and be themselves, thus this phenomenon is growing larger than ever. When is the need for independence considered to be excessive then? In Kate Chopin's, The Awakening, the main character is driven to erratic behaviors to achieve such independence. Yes, in her case and time, she was repressed by societal expectations also contributing to her desires. Women, in this period, were expected to be "perfect wives"  who cared for their children and were submissive to their husbands. The Cult of Domesticity could be brought into questioning of this novel also. These pillars of domesticity restrained women from receiving simple freedoms. So although I believe Edna was driven to exhibit bizarre and excessive needs for independence, I think society forced her to this insanity. That being said, in my opinion, she did go too far though. She reached a point where she took her own life, leaving her children and responsibilities, instead of facing the need for independence in her own way. I do understand both sides, because she perhaps just realized she did all she could do, but if it was me, I would have handled it differently. So are there examples today that demonstrate this excessive need? I found many examples of what is called co-dependency. The serious disorder of co-dependency focuses on people who've rejected others help when it is needed. This is similar to Edna's conflict, but also very different. Co-dependency is a learned behavior that can be passed down from one generation to another. It affects the quality of friendships, similar to how Edna was unable to sustain a healthy relationship with her husband and Robert. Co-dependent behavior is learned by watching and copying other family members who display this type of behavior. This is where Edna is different because she exhibits co-dependency, but she is focused on independence for different reasons than just imitating others. The need for independence is often addressed in literature and news broadcasts often. Whether it be during the women's suffrage  movement, or other various freedom fighter movements, the right to be free lies within. The need for independence is natural for humans, but it also should have a limit. The way people interact with one another exhibits qualities of reliance, respect, and dependence. I believe there should be a constant balance between these contrasting desires.These qualities are still needed to live a nice and healthy life, so therefore the need of independence can be excessive, and in Edna's case, is sometimes taken too far.

One of the hardest things to accept. Change.

In our society, every culture included, change is inevitable. With this inevitability, I believe there comes necessity as well. Although I believe change is necessary, there are many who find it hard to accept. This can be seen throughout acclaimed literature, various sources of media, and our everyday lifestyles. Collectively, as human society, we find change an extremely difficult concept to grasp. Why is this? We grow so accustomed to what we feel comfortable with. We find this comfort in stability and this stability is built off of the assurance that life goes according to plan and no bumps in the road are ever made. However, we know from experience this does not typically go as planned. I think we have to be accepting of change because it is what shapes and molds our society throughout history. For most, it is much harder to understand change than it is for others and examples of this can be seen in such work as “Things Fall Apart” by Chinua Achebe. The main character, Okonkwo, is faced with change head on. As a group of foreign white men bring new traditions and concepts of life to his Nigerian home village, Okonkwo grows uncomfortable with the unfamiliarity that the men bear and is unaccepting of any change, good or bad. Others in his town, including his own son, Nwoye, are quite the opposite as he. In fact, they seek this change and find comfort in the different traditions.  Okonkwo, in my real world example, represents the men in our world who may be afraid of what change will bring. He could also represent the men who are so intertwined in their own lifestyle, that they are blind to seeing the need of change. On the other hand, Nwoye represents the men in our society who anticipate change, and expect and accept it as it comes. It’s important to be like Nwoye for several reasons. Yes, the foreign men could have had ulterior motives. Yes, they could have wanted the land. But, whether it be these white men swooping in and revising things in the villages, or some other force, it was time for change. In my opinion, acceptance of this change, in both Okonkwo’s world and ours, is the first and most important step towards societal progression.

The Moral Code: Right or Wrong?

After reading the article, “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”, written by James Rachels, I have to say I agreed quite quickly with the ancient Persian King Darius.The difference in behaviors for specific cultures is tremendously fascinating. Why are we, as humans, so quick to judge others that speak or behave differently? Each individual was raised thinking his or her ways of life are right. What we think is morally right, is only what are parental guardians have taught us to believe is right. Nurture. Right or wrong can be defined in any culture, but when generalizing for every culture, it is much harder to pin point any specifics. When focusing on cultural relativism, I have to say I agreed strongly at first. I mean, how can there be a universal truth when not one man’s truth is the same as another’s? The more I read though, the more I found contradictions to this claim. For example, I still think each individual should follow the morals presented in their specific culture. However, if one culture condoned murder, I would certainly not say that it should still be an accepted custom within their nation. As I continued to read I saw myself slipping away from the culture relativist assertions that I, moments ago, supported passionately. These concepts of cultural relativism relate to the novel “Things Fall Apart” written by Chinua Achebe. The main tribes of some nine Nigerian villages believe strongly in honoring spirts and obeying their many gods. When strange white men begin to imperialize on their home, the two groups and their conflicting views on religion and morals begin to clash. Some conform, whereas others, like the protagonist Okonkwo, fight the change because they cannot accept that another culture could be right. The examples someone decides to use to support or oppose culture relativism is very crucial to accepting it or denying it. Also, our deepest morals that lie so innately within us influence how we perceive right or wrong in any culture and how we might act upon it. Thus, it is hard to agree on any exact belief. In conclusion, without further evidence, I don’t think anyone can say cultural relativists are, and I do apologize for the repetition, right or wrong.

Have Our Heroes Evolved?

Heroes throughout time have shared many similarities. These similarities have collectively defined them as such recognized individuals as they are. Despite the common characteristics they have shared, when examined with more detail, it becomes quite obvious that our past heroes have certainly evolved. As modern society’s priorities, ambitions, and mannerisms have been transformed, along have our perceptions of people as well. We have proof of this evolution in ancient stories of valiant gods and goddesses, epic warriors, and dauntless noblemen.  These heroes are described as being as close to perfection as possible, if not perfection. But what truly defines a hero in any era, anyway? Bravery. Courage. Confidence. Compassion. Support. The list could go on and on.  The heroes that we notice and ‘catch in the act’ today, stand out in media. However, just because some brave, courageous, confident, compassionate, and supportive people blend into society and don’t get noticed, doesn’t mean they are any less of a hero. At least this seems to be held true by modern standards. In fact, this is where the biggest difference between the past and present hero lies. Past heroes exhibit great physical strength and bravery but they have to prove themselves worthy of such a heroic title. They are less human-like, and more god-like in qualities. For example, in the older, epic poem, Beowulf, the protagonist battles monstrous creatures multiple times and wins. He is described as strong and fearless by lords and soldiers. He outwits all his enemy’s, and eventually saves his people from destruction. In comparison, todays heroes are, metaphorically, “smaller”. They are those people who don’t do it for fame, or attention, but rather for the greater good. They don’t have to be tall and muscular. They make mistakes like any human would. They could do something minor and stand up for someone who is being bullied. They could also do something major and save a child from a burning building. Today, we don’t see or portray our heroes as perfection. So yes, I would say our heroes have most definitely evolved; not for better and or for worse. In my opinion, they are just viewed differently, and as any time changes, the people and their opinions around it do as well.