My junior theme and materialism

For my junior theme I have decided to explore the topic of american materialism. However, the initial proposed question, "why is american society so driven by materialistic gain?" was too broad in scope and unclearly defined. I needed to find a specific aspect of america's materialistic culture from which to approach the issue. I chose advertising. The statistics for american advertising expenditures are startling, with the spending figure rising to $131 billion in 2010. A figure such as this begs the question as to the reason for its magnitude. In exploring the reasons for such a figure, my junior theme will focus on america's consumer culture, which drives such high levels of advertisement. Other factors including americans' time spent before televisions and other forms of entertainment will be examined, but all such pastimes really fall under the scope of american materialism as well, allowing my junior theme to explore the topic extensively.

Determining my junior theme

I am currently considering two possible directions for my Junior theme. The first involves an examination of american consumerism and the USA's materialistic values. I will try to answer the following question: why is american society so motivated by materialistic gain? Though the question may need to be defined more specifically, answering this question will require examining, among other things, the history of the USA pre and post the second world war and the changes in philosophies the USA underwent. I will look at the 'american dream': the dream of rising from humble to wealthy that is supposedly the defining dream of american citizens, and examine reasons for its purely materialistic nature.

The other possibility I am considering for my Junior theme entails examining the causes of the USA's current economic crisis. Although the answer is seemingly obvious: too much was borrowed leaving the country in great debt, I will look at the government's tax policies and main areas of spending which drove it to borrow so much. In doing so I would hope to answer why the USA is in its current economic situation. The weakness of this topic as aJunior theme question is that the historical scope is small. At the end of Clinton's administration, the USA's economy had a surplus, and so the reasons for the economic crisis can be traced back only to the beginning of the Bush administration, which was for the most part responsible. One way to overcome this shortcoming for my Junior theme might be to examine the USA's history of debt and borrowing as a whole, and compare it with the actions of George Bush's administration in more recent years.

A nuclear future or not?

The recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan have left over 10,000 people dead, tens of thousands injured, and a further 500,000 homeless. The figures are devastating and horrific to any who read them. However, the issues raised by these natural disasters unfortunately extend further. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor, located 150 miles north of Tokyo, had holes blown in two of its six reactors and its cooling systems blown out. Among the greatest risks posed by the nuclear crisis is that of radiation leakage, and the Japanese government's attempts to contain high level radiation are under close watch by the rest of the world. Escaped radiation is deadly and can result in fatal radiation sickness for those overexposed to it. The government has already evacuated all those living within 12 miles of the plant, and urged those within 18 miles to stay indoors. Should the radiation spread, though, much more of Japan may be affected. Such a nuclear disaster has inevitably raised great concerns throughout the world for nations developing nuclear programs of their own. Should a similar disaster befall them, they will be at the same deadly risk as Japan is now.

Recently, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez called off his nation's plans for nuclear energy development in response to Japan's crisis http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12768148. In his eyes, the risks are too high, especially considering Japan's high technological proficiency and safety measures, all of which failed to prevent the disaster. In Chile, President Sebastian Pinera nonetheless decided to proceed with nuclear development plans, despite Chile's location on a dangerous ring of seismic activity named the 'ring of fire'. Similar debates in the UK ensue, where the CEO of EDF energy, Vincent De Rivaz, has argued that the UK's nuclear development programs must go ahead whilst taking into account lessons learned from Japan's disaster. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12799322. He sees no alternative to satisfy Britain's growing energy demands.

Despite its obvious risks, one must wonder if nuclear development is an option at all. Japan's disaster was a tragedy, yet in the face of fossil fuel depletion, rising energy consumption and an increasingly mechanized world, there seems to be little choice. Alternative energy sources predominantly feature solar and wind power. Neither of these are able to provide close to the required energy output to sustain developed countries such as the USA. While these may be used to augment other solutions, a stronger base of energy production is required, currently provided by fossil fuels. But what will provide this energy base when fossil fuels, given there non-renewable nature, run out? Nuclear power is the only source as of yet able to provide an adequate energy supply in the coming future. Unfortunately, given its high risks and instability it also seems like a 'pact with the devil' so to say. Unless we wish to live on a dangerous nuclear powered planet, finding a strong and sufficient alternative energy source should be amongst the world's highest priorities.

Tokenism

This week in American studies our class focused on the issue of television tokenism. TV tokenism may be defined as the use of minority actors for supporting character roles which receive little screen time and are often relegated to sub plots. Usually these minority characters are inserted into the show to satisfy network demands for cast diversity. The main character is almost always caucasian. Cast photos from network dramas exemplify this phenomenon.

This photo is of the cast from the TV show "House", a

mature network drama following the story of a genius yet arrogant doctor whose unorthodox

ways of thinking allow him to solve challenging medical mysteries in the hospital. Among the

members of his team is a black doctor, Dr. Foreman, who worked his way up from poor origins.

Foreman's parents are strongly christian, and he is portrayed throughout the series as a resilient

and tough character. Foreman's character is depicted with the common stereotypes held of

African Americans. The cast needed diversity, and "House" fulfilled the requirement. The

leading character, House, is of course caucasian.

While House is only one example of TV tokenism, the phenomenon is common in other shows

and occasionally movies as well. However, shows are businesses. They sell us what we

consume.If television tokenism is common it is only because we as an audience demand it.

Shows are required to feature diverse casts so their audeinces do not jump to conclusions of

racism if the cast is lacks minority characters. Leading role characters are commonly caucasian

because we as an audience relate more easily to such characters and demand that this be the

case. If it were otherwise, shows would assign leading parts to minority actors. If television

tokenism is to be addressed and changed, our own attitudes must change. Businesses

strive to satisfy the customer, and if customer demands change, then so will the business.

Gay marriage and change

This week in class we discussed the emergence of the gay marriage campaign in recent years, and reasons for the timing of its appearance. In the past century american society has experienced the civil rights movement, suffrage, and now campaigns for gay marriage. Are they linked or is their proximity coincidental? Linking the emergence of the gay marriage movement with the preceding civil rights movement may appear a stretch, however, I believe history shows a greater likelihood of rights movements emerging following recent significant changes.

In Europe, the fall of the Roman Empire was followed by a long, largely stagnant dark age for human progress, during which the catholic church's dogma held full control. However, following the reformation: the protestant break from the catholic church, the scientific revolution quickly followed. It is no coincidence that the move to scientific reasoning as the dominant worldview closely followed the breaking of the catholic church's control. Questioning of the catholic church quickly led to questioning of the church as a whole, and so the reformation set the stage rather quickly for the scientific revolution. When one significant change is achieved, it would appear the changed environment opens the scope of people's views to other potential change. A period of rapid change therefore follows. This pattern was reflected in England's fear following the success of the French revolution that such a revolution would occur in their own country. The fear stemmed from worry of change in France opening England's minds to change in their own nation.

Within the USA the suffrage movement and civil rights movement also emerged in close proximity with one another. As soon as the unequal status of one group was questioned, this opened people up to questioning the unequal status of another group, though whether suffrage preceded or followed the civil rights movement I am unsure of. The past century has undergone a dense number of changes ranging from women's rights, to African American rights, and now campaigns for the rights of gays to marry. It would only seem likely that these changes are following the same pattern as others have done: periods of slow change intermingled with periodic shorter ones of rapid change. The gay marriage campaign, I believe, was sparked by the significant progress achieved by the civil rights movement. Change, it would seem, it somewhat viral, and for the good or the better, follows on from itself quickly .

Metapost: another quarter of blogging

This second quarter my blogging has improved upon the weaknesses of my first quarter's posts, while still leaving room for improvement in arguing for my points of view. Last quarter I criticized the slow development of my blogs to provide a clear thesis concerning my view on the subject matter. This quarter, from the outset, my first blog "Freedom's boundaries" makes my position clear on the management of civil liberties in wartime: "I do not believe anyone should be allowed to preach violence against fellow americans in the name of a supposedly 'greater cause', religious or not." This articulation of my thesis is present in each of my blogs this second quarter.

Improving on my first quarter's blogging, I have made sure to include source links more frequently in my posts. Posts which address current affairs, such as "Virtual Worlds", give reference to an article in order to factually support my arguments. Posts which address theoretical discussions e.g. "Adolescence, adulthood and the in between" do not. While such posts address theoretical questions, such as the definition of adulthood, the issues discussed still apply to modern day society and so reference to news articles could have still helped strengthened my argument in showing its relevance today, e.g. how the behavior of today's adolescence affects the way we ought to define adulthood.

Since the start of the quarter my blogs have progressed in the elaboration of my arguments. In one of my earlier blogs, "The enemy", I state my opinion without truly showing the thought process behind it, "While this was my initial reaction, my thoughts changed quickly. While wars are a clash of force between two countries to settle a conflict, how we conduct wars determines our moral status." I describe my thoughts, without the reasoning that led me to them. In my final post, "Right and Wrong", I provide the reasoning behind my opinion: "If others held opposing viewpoints, by which infidelity was perfectly acceptable, there would be no apparent logical process by which I could prove them wrong. The issue would come down to a clash of viewpoints..." In this post I show the reasoning behind my viewpoint that an absolute standard for morals is undefinable. The argument is developed in greater depth further on in the post.

Although my development of argument has progressed, this coming semester I should take greater care to address the opposing side of the argument, something I have for the most part failed to do, and which can only lend stronger credibility to my own argument.

My best post: "Right and wrong"

Right and wrong

This week in class we examined Kohlberg's stages of development in a human being, which examine human motivations to follow rules and laws at different stages of life. The motivations begin with fear of punishment, progressing to individual gain, then to good relationships with others, later to maintaining social order, then to viewing laws as a social contract enabling individual rights, and finally to the recognition of universal principles. Indeed not all individuals necessarily reach the final stage or stages, but Kohlberg maps out the moral development most people undergo from infancy to old age. The varied motivations to act justly, progressing from individual, to societal to universally moral perspectives raised an issue in my mind: the ability or inability to justify any set of morals.

How do we define right from wrong? Most of us are raised with a cultural viewpoint on the definition of moral behavior, but is it possible to justify our morals beyond mere individual or cultural perspective? For instance, if two people debate the moral status of adultery, how can the correct view point be determined? I myself am undoubtedly against it, but if asked to justify my view, I struggle to think what I could say beyond the obvious statement (to me) that cheating on a marital partner is wrong. If others held opposing viewpoints, by which infidelity was perfectly acceptable, there would be no apparent logical process by which I could prove them wrong. The issue would come down to a clash of viewpoints, both of which were likely determined in our cultural upbringing, in my case a western one which supports the concept of fidelity. Other cultures around the world see no problem with polygamy though.

If morals are all defined by perspective, how can standards for moral behavior be set and imposed on others? An article in the BBC caught my attention not long ago concerning the issue of stoning in Iran, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10956520. The article described the case of a woman sentenced to death by stoning (though the sentence may have been changed to hanging) for adultery. This provoked understandable outrage amongst human rights groups. The issue that arose in my mind, though, was that if Iranian culture sees the stoning of unfaithful women as morally acceptable, what higher authority if any can such human rights groups appeal to in order to prove the moral error of this Iranian practice (which I certainly consider outrageous, in case I am misunderstood)? Many may turn to God and religion as the source for their morals, but for those who lack such beliefs, a vacuum is left in which an absolute standard for morals is seemingly undefinable and arguably unjustified. One can no more argue for the morality of human equality than for the immorality of a monarchy beyond their own personal conviction that one is right and the other is wrong (which is my moral conviction nonetheless). Whilst one might believe in equal rights for all, the other might believe in the divine right of kings to rule, which was the common belief in mediaeval Europe and still is in some countries.

In the absence of a certain method by which to define human morals, it would appear all we can do is define our own country's morals as the majority sees fit. As soon as we start trying to impose our own definitions of right and wrong elsewhere, we have entered into murky waters in which no issue or debate can be resolved with certainty.