Critiquing and changing the world through critical theory in traditional and critical theory an essay by max horkheimer Essay Example for Free

Critiquing and changing the world through critical theory in traditional and critical theory an essay by max horkheimer Essay Critical theory is directed towards both critiquing and changing the world, instead of merely explaining and interpreting it. The term critical theory  was coined by Max Horkheimer in his essay â€Å"Traditional and Critical Theory† (1937). By nature, it is radical, emancipatory and highly democratic in nature; historically specific but ever-changing. Even preceding Horkheimer, Karl Marx also contributed to critical theory affirming that â€Å"philosophers have only interpreted the world in certain ways; the point is to change it† (Theses on Feuerbach). Ontologically, the nature of the world is intrinsically one with diametrically opposed dichotomies of power and built-in disadvantaging imbalances and covert, oppressive structures. Horkeimer affirms that critical theory’s primary objective is â€Å"to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them† (Horkheimer 1982, 244). Freedom is derived at the epistemic level for knowledge is power (arming the oppressed with weapons to conduct revolution against dominant orders of society, merging theory and action, instigating change in living conditions merges theory and action and align itself to working against diverse dominant orders of society).   It appreciates the lived experiences of people and interprets actions and symbols of society to understand social oppression. Methodologically, critical theory is pluralistic especially as a result of several socio-economic and political shifts brought about by globalisation. Consequently, several genres of critical theory have emerged, for example racial, post-colonial and feminist. Feminism is any socio-economic, political and cultural movement aimed at reforming society through equal rights and protections on behalf of the woman. Mainstream feminism embraces the legality of the woman as an independent individual, promoting full participation, inclusion and integration to enjoy its rights, responsibilities and privileges. The improvement of the woman’s social condition in civil life hinges on progressivism in where public policies are the catalysts for positive social change and where she would be emancipated and empowered. Feminism is convinced of the positive potential of woman and the benefits which would redound to the larger society through her empowerment. â€Å"Feminism is about the social transformation of gender relations† (Calas 2009). Feminism is virulently opposed to female subjugation, subservience and misogynist injustices – setting about to liberate the woman from inhibiting traditions and status quos that tend to undermine the validation of her personhood.   Generally, feminists support gender equality where both sexes can avail themselves of the same opportunities in both the domestic and public realms. No longer is a woman an inferior or weaker sex. She is an equal. Feminism also perceives the world through gendered lenses, discerns male predominance through patriarchal structures and militates against it. An inexhaustible list of variations exists within feminism, for example liberal feminism clamours for women’s equality, public rights and inclusion in decision-making and discourse. Radical feminism demands a complete and fundamental restructuring and redefining of the world’s institutions, systems and human experience to supersede the male-oriented ones. Marxist feminism concentrates on capitalism as the root cause of female oppression especially in the labour market where men possess more capital and economic privilege. Eco-feminism, Separatist feminism, Post-modern feminism, Third-world feminism, Psychoanalytic feminism, Postcolonial feminism and Amazon feminism among others constitute other types of feminism. Battle of the Sexes (Feminism vs. Machoism) The polarization of men and women forms part and parcel in the perpetual battle of the sexes preoccupied with who should be more privileged in society’s assigned gender roles. The battle of the sexes is predicated on female identity, autonomy, oppression, disempowerment which all reflects the†¦.Feminism frames a discourse that attempts to challenge a longstanding male supremacy. In the past, man held a monopoly over discourse because of unequal structures (domestic/family, business, labour, education, religion and government) which dictated to the woman. In feminist critical theory, â€Å"universal criteria are not value-free, but (based) upon male norms† (May 2001). Owing to male preponderance, discourse would position the male at the centre so that one sees the male â€Å"Self† as the one who prevails whereas the female â€Å"Other† is relegated to the fringes of society. In the battle, machoism seeks to continue the promulgation of a male-based pe rspective in ideas, structures, and institutions that cement his control in society. The masculine voice overpowers and represses the woman. Consequently, â€Å"the answer is †¦ to move away from (the) male-centred perspective and place women at its centre† (May 2001) effectively questioning the legitimacy of and ousting patriarchal tradition. A Gendered View Feminist theory concentrates on the trajectories of women growing to assert themselves and rise above male oppression, inferiority, sexual abuse and gendered stereotyping. Like men, women have the right to autonomy so she must break the yoke of oppression, repression and suppression. Critical theory is hinged on the ideals of the woman as one who has been unduly victimized and oppressed by the patriarchy. This gender-centred philosophy contends with deep-rooted, sexist prejudice against the woman. It presupposes that phallocentric sexism is still in wide currency, discriminating and denying equality to the woman. Legitimized patriarchy in a world system permitted gross inhumanities and injustices to flourish against the woman, termed misogyny. Misogynist practices and policies physically and metaphorically rape the woman of her dignity and personhood. In the face of these indignities, feminists perform critical theory by privileging and empowering the woman. Feminist critical theory pinpoints societal double standards and hypocrisy so that the woman is obliged to abide by different rules inconsistent with fairness. Mainstream critical theory inherently privileges the man while disadvantaging the woman; therefore the feminist discourse stresses the loopholes in the patriarchal discourse that tends to discriminate and disempower the woman.   The double standard code of ethics governs the behaviour of the woman. Even in social research, feminists have succeeded in permeating the topic of double standard research so that â€Å"other forms of sexism in the design of a study may also lead to a double standard in data interpretation† (Eichler1999). Critical theory oriented by feminist principles prompts the question:   is this free from male-dominated standards or double standards: Are both sexes considered and privileged? These questions shed light into the validation of the woman where formerly she has been relegated to inferiority and even anonymity in discourse. Feminism gives birth to female empowerment, yet the discourse often cloaked in anonymity, passivity, obscurity, self-effacement and subjugation Gendered Critical Theory Feminism is committed to â€Å"reducing the unequal power in†¦ relationship† (Acker 1983). It holds that equalising power â€Å"will not be found in some stable orthodoxy but in an evolving dialogue† (DeVault 1999). The â€Å"the idea of objectivity and neutrality in the social sciences (instead)†¦taking the woman’s perspective† (Acker 1983). Despising the â€Å"positivistic objectivity or the reality of the social world as a system of distinct observable variables independent of the knower† (Acker 1983) is another quality of feminist-guided research†¦solidarity with experiences germane to women. Feminism blatantly reject â€Å"such tenets of mainstream social science as the objectivity and separation of researcher from what or whom is researched, the superiority of the researcher as expert† (Small 1995). The attrition of these differences demonstrates a unique equilibrium in social research. Feminism and the Sexual Discourse in I.R. Feminism in I.R. initiates the sexual discourse, boldly tackling topics of sexuality affecting women globally. Rape as a war crime, prostitution and sex slavery, female circumcision, sexual orientation, forms part of the uninhibited dialogue. Feminists aim to uncover the impact of culture on female sexual impressions and expression. In feminist discourse, the woman’s body is not objectified as a sex symbol but is dignified and even deified as it is liberated from social restraint. The politics of sexuality encapsulates various aspects of the woman owing to the links between gender and sexuality, linguistic usage and gender research inherently leaned on cultural interpretations of sex and sexuality†¦ thus the shifts in language and gender (Bucholtz 2004).

The Western Lawman :: American America History

The Western Lawman The west was filled with various characters ranging from cowboys, bandits, bar owners, and ultimately the law. The different attitudes towards men of authority during the western era can be seen through the national radio show of Gun smoke. The knowledgeable, caring, and just sheriff of Dodge County named Matt Dillon portrays many societal roles as he is faced with perplexing situations. Through three episodes of Gunskmoke, the reoccurring theme is that Matt Dillon is the law, the judge, and often the jury. The rise of the west needed a figure of authority and Matt Dillon was that symbol. He was the first person the lawbreakers saw and also the last they wanted to meet. Yeah, weve met Throughout the three episodes of Gunsmoke it can be seen that Dillon is a very knowledgeable person. When a towns person comes and informs Dillon regarding a certain situation, he normally knows who they are or someone related to him. Not only is he aware of whom they are but also their tendencies, whether they are humanitarian in nature or just a plain drunk. During the three episodes of Gunsmoke, Dillon was faced with solving cases in which a murder took place. Dillon knew those who were involved as well as the likelihood of that same person committing the crime at hand. It can be seen through this incident that the western lawman is knowledgeable about his surroundings as well as the various possible suspects. Pope was a good man, he wouldnt do this In the first episode of Gunsmoke, Dillon speaks to a frightened resident who fears the invasion of Indians on his property. Dillon advises the man named Pope to acquire a gun and shoot if they came to close. When the Indians came, Pope shot one dead. However Dillon found out that it wasnt Indians but rather a group of drunken men playing a practical joke. Through this story it is evident that Dillon was very compassionate to Pope by listening to his problem and advising him. Dillon was also kind and patient to the men who played the wrongful joke. It can be seen through this incident that the western lawman is caring and understanding. Im still the law in Dodge Dillon was also very just when it come to the law. The main theme of these three episodes was the portrayal of Dillon playing the role of investigator, judge, jury and lawman.

Convey the story Essay

Heloise and Abelard by James Burger has its place among the most famous biographies that were written about the pair of lovers who lived in Medieval Age, and which is based on the correspondence the two held. It opens a new perspective on the life of the Dark Ages, on its institutions and philosophies, and most of all, on its theology. The lovers who became the victims of the religious age they lived in, that could not admit their love, or any other type of love, for that matter, except religious love. The characters themselves are besides the initiators of free love, the ones who foresee the escape from the too rigid, rule-based religion of the Medieval centuries: â€Å"Let us read after this the famous Colloquy of Erasmus, â€Å"The Franciscan†, and we will find repeated all the essential ideas of Heloise: Christ preached but one religion, the same for layfolk and monks; the Christian renounces the world and professes to live only for Christ, and St. Paul did not preach this doctrine for monks but for everyone; layfolk, even the married, are bound to chastity and poverty quite as much as monks; in short, the only rule binding the Christian is the Gospel. Once she has adopted this course, Heloise’s frank and direct reason would not let her stop. Carried away by her own logic she was to touch, one after the other, almost all the critical points on which the humanists and reformers of the sixteenth century are so insistent. Why forbid meat to monks? Meat in itself is neither good nor bad. Let us not attach religious importance to things which in fact have none. Nothing counts save what can lead us to the kingdom of God. Let us forget, then, these exterior practices common to truly pious souls and to hypocrites, It is only interior acts that really count for the Christian. The rest is Judaism. † (Gilson, 132) Thus, the point that the story of Heloise and Abelard is trying to make, is that theirs was the one of the most tragic examples of the many failures of the Medieval Age, which persecuted through religion and rigid commandments, trough enclosing monasteries and punishments of all kind, instead of opening the road to what true spirituality means. The touching and tragic story of the lovers impresses because of the nobility of their thoughts and feelings, and also to the spectacular love story, which remains intense throughout their lives. Love is blended with the Christian doctrine, and the lovers try to find a bridge between the two, something that will only be found later in the history or religion, with the advent of humanism. 2. Explain who Heloise and Abelard were. What is their background and upbringing? What brings their paths together? Heloise and Abelard form one of the most famous couples known for their romantic love, so often compared to such immortal stories like that of Romeo and Juliet. However, their story is the real account of a twelfth century couple that lasted throughout the centuries both because of the unusual love story that united them, and also because of the startling sincerity and openness of the letters that favors a clear view of their characters and lives, and of the circumstances of the century they lived in. Pierre Abelard was a well-known philosopher and theologian of the Middle Ages, whose studies have been concerned with mainly with logic and dialectics in the early years, and then with ethics and theology later on in his life. Of the account he himself gives of his early life in the letter addressed to his friend Philintus, we find that in his early youth he discovered his â€Å"natural genius for study†, and became â€Å"smitten with love for books†, so much so that he decided to renounce at once the fortune that father had bestowed on him as his eldest son, to his brothers and to dedicate himself entirely to learning. His passion and ambition to become a great logician soon brought him notoriety inside the circles of scholars, and he stood out as one of the most reputed teachers of his time. It is in the midst of his glory as a philosopher that the event that will change his life forever occurs: he sees Heloise, the niece of a certain Fulbert. She is belongs to a lower social class than he but she is equal in all else to him: she is literate and very learned, perhaps even surpassing him in depth of thought and feeling. All these were unique and very rare qualities in a medieval woman. Abelard concocts the perfect means of making her acquaintance, with a clear intention to conquer her and make her his mistress. He talks to the uncle, and after having offered him a sum of money, he obtains the latter’s assent to instruct his daughter as her teacher. Heloise, who has reason enough to admire him for his knowledge and brilliant mind, soon falls in love with him and becomes his lover, without the slightest resistance. It is here that their fascinating but tragic story actually begins. 3. Who was William of Champeaux? Discuss his influence in the life of Abelard. Why did Abelard achieve both acclaim and notoriety? Abelard has been, because of his originality of thought, in controversy with many of the philosophers of the age, among these, William of Champeaux, who began by being his teacher, but who was soon outwitted in the lectures he gave by his student. This naturally created animosity between the two, and it became even more founded when Abelard started teaching himself, and drew to his side most of the students that formerly had been instructed by Champeaux: â€Å"I put myself under the direction of one Champeaux, a professor who had acquired the character of the most skilful philosopher of his age, but by negative excellencies only as being the least ignorant! He received me with great demonstrations of kindness, but I was not so happy as to please him long; for I was too knowing in the subjects he discoursed upon, and I often confuted his notions. Frequently in our disputations I pushed a good argument so home that all his subtlety was not able to elude its force. It was impossible he should see himself surpassed by his scholar without resentment. It is sometimes dangerous to have too much merit. Envy increased against me in proportion to my reputation. † ( I) Abelard was many times an envied scholar, and later on, he was even accused of heresy for his ideas, by the enemies he always made in his circle. But, nevertheless, he became more and more notorious, because of the originality and novelty of his ideas, and especially because of his passion and ability for logic and argumentation. 4. How do Heloise and Abelard fall in love? What challenges must their relationship overcome? What were the consequences for both Abelard and Heloise? What is transcendent or universal about their love story? Together in the house of Heloise’s uncle, under the assumed masks of teacher and student, Heloise and Abelard begin their love story. As it becomes clear from Abelard’s own confessions in the letters to her, and from the imputations she brings on him, in her turn, the beginning of their of their affair was due more to his lust and incontinence rather than to his feelings for her: â€Å"Was it not the sole thought of pleasure which engaged you to me? And has not my tenderness, by leaving you nothing to wish for, extinguished your desires? Wretched Heloise! you could please when you wished to avoid it; you merited incense when you could remove to a distance the hand that offered it: but since your heart has been softened and has yielded, since you have devoted and sacrificed yourself, you are deserted and forgotten! † (II) Heloise however, seems to have given herself completely to her feelings to him, from beginning to end of their love story. After they remained together for the space of a few months, but their love was son discovered by Heloise’s uncle, who, enraged, demanded compensation from Abelard for his offense against the family honor. Abelard decides to marry Heloise, and when the latter becomes pregnant he sends her away to Britanny, to the care of his sister. The actual situation of the two lovers can not be fully comprehended without placing it in the Medieval context. Thus, it would perhaps seem natural to a modern reader that marriage be a solution for Abelard and Heloise, one that would confer legitimacy on their bond, both from the point of view of religion and from that of moral. However, this was not the case at all, for a few clear reasons. First of all, both Abelard and Heloise were both learned people, with such strict and high spiritual aspirations that they were incompatible with the idea of lay marriage. Abelard wanted for himself the kind of pure life that he admired in Saint Jerome or Seneca, and which would bring him the glory he longed for. For Heloise his glory would have been her glory too, so she was actually the one who withstood all she could the idea of marriage. In the strict sense of the world, according to the Medieval moral and religious laws, Abelard had the right to marry, without losing by this act the right to teach or his clerical dignity. The actual danger was that they, as all Medieval scholars, regarded marriage as a form of weakness and incontinence, that would inevitably and permanently drive a scholar away from his prayers and philosophical inquiries. Marriage was therefore considered degrading, and not a lot better than fornication for the ones who aspired to become theologians, because it had the same consequences – surrendering to sensual pleasures and forgetting one’s duty to God: â€Å"†If therefore laymen and pagans have lived thus, without the restrictions of a religious profession, how much the more is it your duty to do so, you who are a cleric and a canon, lest you should come to prefer shameful pleasures to the divine service, lest you cast yourself into the gulf of Charybdis and perish, lest you should destroy yourself in these obscenities to the mockery of the whole world. † (III) It is precisely in this conflict between their great passion and their aspiration for spiritual heroism, that the tragedy of Heloise and Abelard begins, even more so, when we consider that the spiritual ideals they tried to attain were not imposed on them from the outside, but were their own, and therefore as powerful as their love. It is this context that makes possible the famous and extraordinary statement of Heloise to Abelard, in which she declares that she would rather be his mistress or his prostitute than his wife: â€Å"You cannot but be entirely persuaded of this by the extreme unwillingness I showed to marry you, though I knew that the name of wife was honorable in the world and holy in religion; yet the name of your mistress had greater charms because it was freer. The bonds of matrimony, however honorable, still bear with them a necessary engagement and I was very unwilling to be necessitated to love always a man who would perhaps not always love me. † (II) As she herself declares it, Heloise believed in the disinteresedness of love, and considered, ahead of the time she lived in, that marriage does nothing to preserve the purity of love, but, on the contrary, makes it the slave of ambition or other advantages that are not love itself. Love is not to be confused with mere life or be put under the same necessities as the latter, as it would happen in a marriage, and this is seemingly what the story of Heloise and Abelard signified: a love that surpassed in intensity and nobility the limitations of simple life: â€Å"You have very justly observed in your letter that I esteemed those public engagements insipid which form alliances only to be dissolved by death, and which put life and love under the same unhappy necessity. (†¦ )With what ease did you compose verses! And yet those ingenious trifles, which were but a recreation to you, are still the entertainment and delight of persons of the best taste. The smallest song, the least sketch of anything you made for me, had a thousand beauties capable of making it last as long as there are lovers in the world. Thus those songs will be sung in honor of other women which you designed only for me, and those tender and natural expressions which spoke your love will help others to explain their passion with much more advantage than they themselves are capable of. † (IV) Heloise already takes pride in their love story as something universal that will be used as a ground for comparison for future couples who will be bound by so great a love. The two loved each other with such great ardor and nobility, that their love is pure in spite of their sin. In spite of Heloise’s noble attitude that can not consent either to the loss of glory by the man she loves or to the degrading of noble and free love by binding it to the hearse of marriage, the two eventually contract a â€Å"secret marriage†, a compromise imposed by Abelard, so as not to lose Heloise but at the same time, to maintain his respectfulness in public. Abelard sends his wife to the monastery of Argenteuil to avoid further rumors about their marriage, already dressing her in the nun habit, without knowing that she will wear it forever afterwards . The climax of these happenings comes with the barbaric act of revenge that Heloise’s uncle commits. He bribes the servants of Abelard and these allow for someone to enter the room of their master by night and castrate him. This terrible and symbolic revenge is perhaps what made the love story between Heloise and Abelard legendary. Afterwards, they both retire in convents, Heloise being the first to put on the veil, at Abelard’s command, who not being able to posses her anymore, shuts her up from the world in his jealousy, so that she might never belong to anyone else. This is perhaps the greatest and incontestable act of love and sacrifice she performs for him, surrendering herself completely, and renouncing the greatest thing for him: not the world, as he thought, but him, the man she loved. Their love becomes transcendental and universal through the very passion that fettered them when they were together, but which also manifested itself in their acts of renouncement.

Benthams Theory of Happiness - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 994 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2019/04/22 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Happiness Essay Did you like this example? Human Nature and Nature has somewhat of a common goal and that goal is to find Happiness or to be Happy. Many may have differences when it comes to values that may contribute towards their happiness, meaning that not everyone has the same preference when it comes to that one thing or set of things that allow them to feel at peace and complete. Bentham gave a thought process on how one should really incorporate certain actions within their daily routines. Basically, he is stating that if you can feel, you can prevent and cure. THEORY OF VALUE The Theory of Value touches on different topics such as pain and pleasure, good and bad, Utility, and how should the value of something be measured. These topics revert to the main one which is Utility. By utility is meant that property in any object Bentham 1.3(2). Bentham is basically saying in the above quote that whatever you value the most should bring continuous happiness whether it is a person, place or thing. He then goes on to say the principle of utility. the tendency has to augment the happiness. greater than diminish it. Bentham 1.6 (3). Therefore, utility allows a person to make the correct decisions based on certain situations. The value of said utility can allow an individual to move accordingly. If the good outweighs the bad or the bad outweighs the good, a person will know to whom or what to give all of their attention to. This theory may also be looked at from the perspective of if the subject can feel pain or the question that Bentham asked Can they suffer? Bentha m 17.4 note (310). Bentham believed that once an object can show emotions, they should add a great value and be of priority. They should be protected from anything that may cause harm or pain. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Benthams Theory of Happiness" essay for you Create order THEORY OF HUMAN NATURE Human Nature has people with different mindsets. According to Bentham, Human Nature is governed by pain and pleasure Bentham 1.1 (1-2). For Bentham, this is the base for all forms of decision making. He thought that everyone deserved to be secured from pain since it is seen as being evil. The business of government is to promote happiness.by punishing and rewarding Bentham 7.1(70). This shows that it is the duty of the government to protect its people and allow them to have happiness in the process. It can also go for everyone else other than just the government. When living in a community once someone has caused another pain without any form of sympathy, it should not go unpunished. Bentham brought light to this by using slaves as an example. He stated that no one has any rights of owning things that have any way of showing feelings. Bentham stresses the fact that we all have a duty to not cause harm or do evil. Human Nature is supposed to be sensible beings and should know how to treat not just only self but also those around us. Human Nature on a whole is subjected to moral duties, and together with those duties, there should be some form of sympathy shown towards each other. There should not be any kind of bias when it comes to showing sympathy. Human Nature is filled with sensitive individuals from human beings to animals, therefore, sympathy is a part of said duties. HOW OUGHT I TO ACT? Overall, Human Nature as stated above has a moral duty when it comes to how others should be treated. Bentham gave a small outline of what it should be. The three parts to said duty are as follows, Probity, Prudence, and Beneficence. The way that these words were placed according to the context, Probity means to not cause pain or harm to others. Prudence means that one has a duty to avoid causing pain to ones self. Beneficence means that one should be able to assist someone or to prevent pain from happening to others. He then continues on to give reasons under Beneficence. The first is to refrain or stay away from any harm, the second is to make an attempt to prevent the harm; one will choose to or choose not to carry out such an action if it is within your power to prevent it, and if it is too much of a ?sacrifice. With these in place, it gives a person some assistance in the choices that should be made. Bentham added that EthicsBentham 17.2-17.9 (310-314), plays a big part in the way situations are being handled. It is the way an activity is carried out towards the fulfillment of happiness. If something is going on one cannot just stand there and allow it to happen. Bentham gave different scenarios in Chapter 17 note (pg 323), A womans head-dress catches fire: water is at hand:a man looks on and laughs at it. What is being said is that if one can give any form of assistance to anyone who is in harms way, they should do it. This goes back to where he speaks about having sympathy and the moral duty of Human Nature. If the man assisted the woman with putting out the fire, he would be helping prevent any harm being done to her. The man would be performing the moral duty which is Beneficence. To sum it up, How ought I to act?, can be taken from the above theories. All these theories have a part to play in the main part of how every one should be treated. It should not matter whether one is in the government or in a lower class than others, all should be treated as an equal because of the fact that they can suffer. Utility, since having something of value is part of Human Nature, the moral duty will fall into place. By not causing harm to others or self, no one would feel pain and will always look forward to enjoying the pleasures of the things they value the most.