A Critique Review

David Denby, writing in The New Yorker, after declaring that the movie is not “just bad,” but “dreadful,” goes on to report himself “deeply embarrassed because all around me … people were sitting rapt, awed, absolutely silent, only to burst into applause after some of the numbers.” What embarrasses Denby is the decline in “the taste of my countrymen” in the face of something that is to him so obviously “overbearing, pretentious, madly repetitive”; and he seconds the judgment of Anthony Lane, also a New Yorker reviewer, who dismisses the film as “inflationary bombast.” (Something a bit inflationary about that phrase, perhaps.)    ‘Les Miserables’ and Irony by Stanley Fish of the New York Times

Even though I've never seen "Les Miserables"    although I want to    I can still relate to this passage. Fish is analyzing the reviews of a few critics whom very much disliked the film, although he himself loved it, in order to figure out what their conclusions are based upon. Ultimately, his intellectual excursion leads him to the concept of irony and the article continues. But I find his disagreement with the critics of most interest. I don't read movie reviews at all, but I do take reviews into consideration before purchasing a video game. Sometimes I'll even read or watch a review of a game which I already have in order to gain their perspective. Many times I'm not surprised by their verdict or I begin to notice attributes which I had not necessarily noticed previously. But other times I find myself utterly confused or even defensive in response to their verdict; I feel that the game deserves better. Yet, I sometimes find myself becoming borderline obsessive over negatively critiquing something simply because I don't like the premise of that particular game. Such an attitude has affected my opinion of everything from music to television to food or even motor vehicles. Do I necessarily understand what I am critiquing? Probably not; yet, I do it anyway. Therefore, I can't help but wonder how they formulate their conclusions. Are they influenced by perceived notions? Do they establish preferences simply do to perhaps a single element? Obviously, every individual is subjected to bias, and, therefore, they perceive the world differently. Although the purpose of a review is to help an individual decide upon the value of a decision, sometimes it is better to merely decide for yourself. Otherwise, you may be missing out.

Equality?

But the “gay” passage of Obama’s speech underscored the lingering gap between the American ideal and the American reality. “Our journey is not complete,” he said, “until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”    A Map of Human Dignity by Frank Bruni

This passage, as well as the article's overall message, reminds me a lot of the struggles for racial equality that had gathered nationwide attention decades ago. Now this may seem like a shallow analysis, and it likely is from a narrow comparative perspective, but the same principle applies as reflected in Barack Obama's speech. The Declaration of Independence reads: 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." 

Interestingly, the 16th president of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, the president whom Barack Obama has recently been compared to in correlation with the political divisions that occured during the 2012 election, alluded the very same passage of the Declaration of Independence during his famous Gettysburg Address: 

"...our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

This nation continues to strive for equality, but it seems to have difficulty defining it. This is evident from the "separate but equal" determination by the Supreme Court over the Plessy vs. Ferguson case in the late 19th century. Plessy Argued that the forced separation of blacks from whites inherently implies that blacks are inferior to whites and that forced separation was, therefore, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled: 

"...it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it."

However, in 1954, the Supreme Court repealed this decision in their ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education, putting an end to public school segregation and, by extension, segregation altogether, although not immediately or easily. It seems obvious that our interpretations of what is right or wrong, what is equal or unequal, is determined by societal context. Our definitions continue to change. Fortunately, the Civil Rights movement finally established equality for blacks in the eyes of the government, but even today racial tensions are prevalent among ordinary citizens. This is where it gets difficult to define equality. Are they equal in the eyes of the government or in the eyes of the people? Government recognition equality merely indicates a person's right to vote, to hold office, to be protected by law under the same circumstances. Public recognition is deeper. The government isn't greatly concerned as to one's physical appearance, personal backgrounds, or personal choices    the people are. We perceive, and then we judge based upon the principles and doctrine we hold to ourselves. Inherently, a black individual is not characteristically equal to a white individual, a Hispanic individual, or any other individual of a distinctive race. As well, a homosexual is not the same as a heterosexual    they are characteristically different. So is it important that LGBT's are extended the same marital rights as other human beings? Well, that really depends on one's definition of marriage. Marriage has been conventionally defined as between a man and a woman; it is a precedent that has been established for millennia but has been given legal significance in relation to government. Does its legal significance mean that every individual is entitled to it despite there sexual orientation, or should marriage remain a strictly heterosexual union as defined by its significance based on biological definition?

The Advancement of Social Technology and Its Effects on Modern Society

Timothy Egan's statement in response to the how the Notre Dame linebacker, Manti Te'o, could have possibly "fallen in love with a woman he never met" which ultimately led to a humiliating and public hoax sparked a concern I've had for some time. Here is what Egan said:

"The answer, in part, is what’s wrong with love and courtship for a generation that values digital encounters over the more complicated messiness of real human interaction. As my colleague Alex Williams reported in a widely discussed piece a few days ago, screen time may be more important than face time for many 20- and 30-somethings. “Dating culture has evolved to a cycle of text messages, each one requiring the code-breaking skills of a cold war spy to interpret,” said Shani Silver, 30, in the story." The Hoax of Digital Life by Timothy Egan

It is obvious and naturally expected that we, as a society, have been rapidly advancing technologically. But I'm not as concerned with technology which desalinates water in industrial quantities or telescopes which probe through space. We've had computers for decades now, and newer computer implementations are being continuously integrated within the social environment as a response to our social "needs". However, sometimes I feel hesitant to call it "advancement". It would seem that our priorities and our interpretations of social interaction are changing. But are these changes for the better? Perhaps they are. Still, it is important to analyze these changes in order to negate any negative repercussions. Now, I don't intend to go through all the details, but with change inevitably comes consequences. People--young individuals particularly--are gradually becoming more and more dependent upon their devices for the fulfillment of certain needs such as social interaction, satisfying such needs with a conduit which provides sometimes instant gratification. This instant gratification requires little effort and is readily available, reducing one's need to really achieve anything other than some simple comment which is merely representative of a person. How would this play out within an extended timeline? How will society and culture turn out in the end? Is this a perpetual cycle or will there be means for reversal?

Cultural Cognition

As I was reading an article in the New York Times, something profound caught my attention:

"Humans are social animals.We have evolved to depend on our group, our tribe, for our health and safety. So we adopt views and positions that align with those of our group, in order to be accepted and supported   and protected   as a member in good standing. Agreeing with the group also helps protect us because social unity helps our tribe prevail in the competition with other tribes for control of society in general. So we see and interpret the facts about guns, or any issue, through these deep lenses." ("On Gun Policy, Both Sides Have Something to Fear" by David Ropeik)

Now, this idea of course is not new, (he establishes this by referring to it as "cultural cognition") but it introduces a viewpoint on the volatile subject of gun control that I haven't yet heard   at least not in such depth. According to Ropeik, how we view any particular matter   especially any deeply polarizing matter   is largely dictated, or at least influenced, by our social environment. We've all heard of this kind of influence of behavior as "peer pressure" which is generally viewed with negative connotation. But the natural principle is the same: we want to be like others, and we want others to be like us. Still, the primary basis of such social behavior which supposedly encourages "unity" has inspired sometimes fierce debate.

"We are creatures of habit" as some say, either tolerating change or standing in outright opposition to it. We strive to maintain a routine or atmosphere familiar to us as we feel secure when we know the result of our actions or the order around us. It is similar to our discomfort with darkness: one fears the dark because one cannot see what is there. Therefore, the reason we strive for familiarity is because we recognize the result and find security in knowing.

Being different is not advantageous   it invokes insecurity. If an individual   or group   is perceived as "different," that individual is unfamiliar to those around him or her and, therefore, others are less inclined to extend themselves to that individual out of fear how ever subtle. Such is the root of racism and other forms of unjustified intolerance. What is advantageous, however, within the context of security, is social conformity: eventually, the culture of the social environment becomes integrated into the individual's personal culture thereby invoking familiarity with and amid the social environment and instilling a renewed sense of security. Given such evaluation, it impossible to ignore the persistence of regional cultures and even stereotypes.

I find this notion fascinating yet not unfamiliar. It is almost an innate concept that I would assume each individual would also recognize. However, some, I would imagine, likely either ignore or outright reject it as a misguided and baseless examination of human social behavior which compromises the freedom of expression sought by all and ordained as one's personal "right." Others, on the other hand, likely accept such examination in order to identify rational behavior; rational behavior which is itself identified within the context of time and place.