Schedule from 3-22-4-19 Spring 2017
3-22 Essay 2 Due. "Green Guilt" 25
3-27 "The Great White Way" 68 and "Understanding Black Patriotism" 55
3-29 "People Like Us" 62
4-3 “Prudence or Cruelty?”, 172 "Cutting Food Stamps Will Cost Everyone," "The Economic Case for Food Stamps," "How America's Welfare System Hurts the People It's Supposed to Help"
4-5 "Wages of Sin" and "Eat Cake, Subtract Self-Esteem" 181-202
4-17 In-Class Bluebook Exam
4-19 Essay #3 Due
Essay 3 for 150 points. Options: 1,400 words typed options and 3 sources is due no later than the start of class on April 19.
One. Refute, support, or complicate Asma’s assertion that green guilt is not only a relative to religious guilt but speaks to our drive to sacrifice self-indulgence for the drive of altruistic self-preservation and social reciprocity. See Elizabeth Anderson’s online essay “If God Is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?”
Two. Develop a thesis that supports, refutes, or complicates the assertion Debra J. Dickerson, who wrote the “The Great White Way,” would find Michael Eric Dyson's essay "Understanding Black Patriotism" a complement to Dickerson's ideas about race, power, and hierarchy.
Three. Support, refute, or complicate Debra J. Dickerson's argument that race in America is more of a social fantasy than a reflection of objective reality.
Four. Show how the Jordan Peele movie Get Out builds on Debra J. Dickerson's argument that race in America is a cruel invention designed to create a hierarchy of power, one that can be seen in all its horror in post-Obama America. For sources, see NYT review , The Guardian review, and the Variety review.
Five. Develop a thesis that analyzes the human inclination for staying within the tribe of sameness as explained in David Brooks’ “People Like Us” (very popular with students).
Six. Support, refute, or complicate Nicholas Kristof’s assertion that slashing food stamps is morally indefensible.
Seven. Addressing at least one essay we've covered in class (“The Wages of Sin” and “Eat Cake, Subtract Self-Esteem), support, refute, or complicate the argument that overeating, anorexia, and other eating disorders are not the result of a disease but are habits of individual circumstance and economics.
Eight. Support, refute, or complicate the argument that feminist-political explanations for anorexia, as evident in Caroline Knapp's essay, are a ruse that hide the disease's real causes.
“Green Guilt” by Stephen Asma
Two Key Paragraphs:
All this internalized self-loathing is the cost we pay for being civilized. In a very well-organized society that protects the interests of many, we have to refrain daily from our natural instincts. We have to repress our own selfish, aggressive urges all the time, and we are so accustomed to it as adults that we don't always notice it. But if I was in the habit of acting on my impulses, I would regularly kill people in front of me at coffee shops who order elaborate whipped-cream mocha concoctions. In fact, I wouldn't bother to line up in a queue, but would just storm the counter (as I regularly witnessed people doing when I lived in China) and muscle people out of my way. But there is a small wrestling match that happens inside my psyche that keeps me from such natural aggression. And that's just morning coffee—think about how many times you'd like to strangle somebody on public transportation.
When aggression can't go out, then it has to go inward. So we engage in a kind of self-denial, or self-cruelty. Ultimately this self-cruelty is necessary and good for society—I cannot unleash my murderous tendencies on the whipped-cream-mocha-half-decaf latte drinkers. But my aggression doesn't disappear, it just gets beat down by my own discipline. Subsequently, I feel bad about myself, and I'm supposed to. Magnify all those internal daily struggles by a hundred and you begin to see why Nietzsche thought we were always feeling a little guilty. But historically speaking we didn't really understand this complex psychology—it was, and still is, invisible to us. We just felt bad about ourselves, and slowly developed a theology that made sense out of it. God is perfect and pristine and pure, and we are sinful, unworthy maggots who defile the creation by our very presence. According to Nietzsche, we have historically needed an ideal God because we've needed to be cruel to ourselves, we've needed to feel guilty. And we've needed to feel guilty because we have instincts that cannot be discharged externally—we have to bottle them up.
Revised Essay Option:
In a typed essay with a Works Cited page, support, refute, or complicate Asma's assertion that "self-cruelty is necessary and good for society."
One. What kind of outrage does the author’s son express in the first paragraph?
“Don’t you love the earth?” becomes a way of making two statements: One’s allegiance to a cause or a special tribe and self-righteous scolding of someone whose behavior doesn’t conform to the tribe.
These scoldings or admonishments reinforce group cohesion and tribal identity.
Two. What does our need for guilt say about us?
We seem to have some neurosis that makes us feel empty unless we’re on a “guilt trip.”
Guilt seems to be the glue that tells people we’re “fighting on the same team” and if you deviate from the game plan you’re a reprobate, a sinner, an outcast, or even a pariah.
We also love to shame others as we feel elevated, intoxicated, and aggrandized by our self-righteous posturing.
Three. The author writes that behind our guilt is a pervading sense of worthlessness and shame? What is behind these feelings?
He writes that “internalized self-loathing” is a mechanism designed to help us be more civilized. Otherwise we’d live in a Hobbesian nightmare (anarchy).
Self-loathing helps us repress our Id (raw, uncontrollable desire) or our tendencies for self-abandonment and indulgence. By repressing our desires collectively, we protect the interest of the many.
How big of a blanket do I spread out on the beach? How loud do I play my boombox while I'm slopping coconut tanning butter on my tanned torso. How reckless do I fling the Frisbee to my beach buddy, allowing the Frisbee to hit nearby beach visitors? Do I pick up my dog's mess at the dog beach? Do I control my dog's incessant barking? How loud do I laugh at the movie theater? How loud is my eating and slurping while watching the movie?
Self-loathing also represses our aggression.
For example, I loathe myself when I’m driving and I lose my temper. Self-loathing represses my road rage temper tantrums. But that repression requires energy, so that when I’m a “nice and courteous drive” I come home exhausted; after all, for a guy like me being nice requires enormous amounts of energy (repression requires energy after all).
Not eating all the food I want—burgers, pizzas, cakes, pies, etc.—requires even more self-loathing that results in repression and of course the end effect is exhaustion.
“Being me is a full-time job.”
Adding to our neurosis, when we suppress our aggression, as evidenced in the road rage example above, we turn our aggression inward, Asma writes, and this results in “self-cruelty."
Rather than hate the world, we hate ourselves. And this self-hatred serves civilization, that is, until some of us blow up, as we read about all too often in the news.
Four. According to Asma, how did our psychology create a guilt-infused religion?
Asma writes we have always used guilt, repression, and self-loathing as ways to live and cooperate in a civilized society. Rather than psychoanalyze ourselves, we poured out our unconscious guilt and other toxic emotions into religious doctrines that would externalize that guilt and shame by calling us “sinners.” Religion, according to Nietzsche, allows us to be cruel to ourselves.
We can infer from this essay that according to Asma religion is a whip that we use to exact cruelty upon ourselves.
Five. Do guilt and self-loathing exist in secular, urban hipster cultures?
Yes, they do, but they take another form of religion: environmentalism: Asma writes that now “we have the transgressions of leaving the water running, leaving the lights on, failing to recycle, and using plastic grocery bags instead of paper.”
Asma adds, brilliantly I might say, that we have other secular avenues for self-inflicted cruelty and guilt: We punish our indulgent eating habits with crazy diets and cleanses and running on treadmills for hours upon hours until we want to die.
Here's a blog The Emptiness featuring a post titled "Green guilt and slave morality."
Essay Option
Refute, support, or complicate Asma’s assertion that green guilt is not only a relative to religious guilt but speaks to our drive to sacrifice self-indulgence for the drive of altruistic self-preservation and social reciprocity. See Elizabeth Anderson’s online essay “If God Is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?”
Develop a thesis that analyzes the human inclination for staying within the tribe of sameness as explained in David Brooks’ “People Like Us.”
Support, refute, or complicate Nicholas Kristof’s assertion that slashing food stamps is morally indefensible.
Addressing at least two essays we've covered in class, support, refute, or complicate the argument that overeating, anorexia, and other eating disorders are not the result of a disease but are habits of individual circumstance and economics.
For essay 1, you need 3 credible sources. One of those sources has to come from the El Camino library database. You can use all 3 if you like. The database provides your MLA Works Cited format. You need to simply copy and paste it on your Works Cited page.
Writing a thesis for the above option:
A thesis is a central argument that can be demonstrated with logic, facts, and research.
If you're a beginning writer, it is often a good idea to give a thesis mapping components, which outline your body paragraphs.
Sample Thesis Against Stephen Asma's Argument
While it's true we must use our conscience to restrain our base impulses so we can get along in a healthy civilization, Asma takes the idea of individual conscience too far, creating a Gospel of Necessary Guilt, which is harmful to human development. For one, excessive guilt disconnects us from ourselves and creates self-medicating, addictive behavior. Second, guilt doesn't accomplish productive goals. Third, guilt is a tool that mainstream society uses to manipulate us and make us conform to their ways.
Sample Thesis That Supports Stephen Asma's Argument
While guilt can be excessive, it is a necessary part of the human conscience. When used correctly, guilt is an effective tool for helping us consider others rather than our own selfish needs, guilt makes us hesitate wisely when we're tempted to fulfill our individual desires over our familial and societal duties, and guilt can be used to pry us out of our self-contented mediocrity.
Summarizing Asma's Major Ideas
Asma’s idea is that people need guilt in order to restrain themselves from attacking others. He claims that without his own residual “self-loathing” he would not hesitate to attack people at Starbucks that annoy him by ordering pretentious sounding drinks. This reveals far more about Asma’s personal psychology than it does about the tendency of people in western cultures to be violent and anti-social. Internally western countries are remarkably peaceful and orderly by global standards.
So why do people cling to these guilt based moral systems? Well, how are people raised? If almost everyone in a culture exhibits a certain trait in common, is it because that trait is “natural”? Is it “natural” to be a Muslim, and that is why everyone in Muslim countries grows up to be a Muslim? Or is it that children in these countries learn very young that they must conform to the beliefs and prejudices of the adults that control society? The same principle is at work in our culture. Even if we think the modern West is secular and progressive, it is still built on a foundation of shared Judeo-Christian slave morality that persists even as the modern man can no longer bring himself to believe in invisible men in the clouds. Environmentalism is just Christianity 2.0.
Slave morality has always been a power strategy for the priestly class. But the old priestly class has been ebbing in power for centuries now, and the field is open for new players to enter the game. Environmentalists, Climate scientists, diet puritans and other lifestyle scolds are all vying to take their place and be the ones to save your soul by selling you indulgences in the form of carbon credits and raw food shakes. As long as our society is built on a foundation of slave morals people will continue to go for it.
According to Asma, what are the key differences between the "religious sins"of the past and the "transgressions" that characterize everyday life today?
And what larger point is he trying to make here about the way our understanding of "sin" has changed?
He seems to be saying that now that we have a psychological understanding of sin, we are less reliant on religion to provide guilt, shame, and repression; however, because we still depend on these forms of self-cruelty to cooperate in a society we create secular religions to do shame's bidding.
Then take a closer look at each of the "transgressions" he lists here. To what extent, in your view, is it valid to feel "guilty" about each?
You're either arguing that guilt is a helpful behavior tool or a slave tool for the "power priests," secular or otherwise.
Or to complicate the matter, you might argue that guilt is both good and bad as a behavior tool.
Is it helpful, necessary, and/or right for these oversights to "plague our conscience"? Why or why not?
"Green Guilt" Essay Option
Refute, support, or complicate Asma’s assertion that green guilt is not only a relative to religious guilt but speaks to our drive to sacrifice self-indulgence for the drive of altruistic self-preservation and social reciprocity. See Elizabeth Anderson’s online essay “If God Is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?”
Sample Thesis Statements
"Green Guilt" makes a powerful argument that we must accept the afflictions of guilt and sin, whether that sin be religious or secular, in order that we get along in a cooperative society.
We must conclude after reading Stephen Asma's brilliant "Green Guilt" that human happiness must be compromised in the service of guilt and self-induced "sin" in order that we suppress our selfish drives, cooperate with one another, and hone our conscience in a constantly Darwinian universe.
Stephen Asma's cogent and insightful "Green Guilt" delivers a bombshell to the human race: Absolute happiness is a farce that must take back seat to guilt and misery in order to promote a cooperative society.
Even though it appears Stephen Asma is not religious in any orthodox sense, it is of note that his secular explanation of sin does not conflict at all with my religious sense of it. In fact, my religious sense of sin is compatible with Stephen Asma's secular version when we consider __________, _____________, ____________, and _____________.
"Green Guilt" is just a pathetic excuse for the "slave morality" that allows the power brokers or One Percent to exact control upon the rest of us.
Stephen Asma's attempt to universalize sin as a secular affliction collapses when we consider the affliction he refers to is not universal at all but rather confined to privileged liberals who have created a code of behavior that requires shaming in order to make others conform to their ways.
Sample Outline for Essay
Paragraph One: Introduction: Summarize essay. This could take you 200 words.
Paragraph Two: Define "green guilt" based on your understanding of the essay. This definition could very well be about 200 words.
Paragraph Three: Your thesis that agrees or disagrees with the author; include your reasons in clauses or separate sentences. These are called mapping components. They map your body paragraphs. 150 words (subtotal 550)
Paragraphs Four through Seven are your supporting paragraphs. They would be about 150 words each. (4x150=600 for 1,150 subtotal)
Paragraph Eight is your counterargument-rebuttal. This could be up to 200 words. (1,350 subtotal)
Paragraph Nine would be your conclusion. It would probably be 100-150 words. (a little over 1,400 words).
On a separate page is your Works Cited.
Example of an Essay That Never Uses First, Second, Third, Fourth, Etc., for Transitions But Relies on "Paragraph Links"
Stupid Reasons for Getting Married
People should get married because they are ready to do so, meaning they're mature and truly love one another, and most importantly are prepared to make the compromises and sacrifices a healthy marriage entails. However, most people get married for the wrong reasons, that is, for stupid, lame, and asinine reasons.
Alas, needy narcissists, hardly candidates for successful marriage, glom on to the most disastrous reasons for getting married and those reasons make it certain that their marriage will quickly terminate or waddle precariously along in an interminable domestic hell.
A common and compelling reason that fuels the needy into a misguided marriage is when these fragmented souls see that everyone their age has already married—their friends, brothers, sisters, and, yes, even their enemies. Overcome by what is known today as "FOMO," they feel compelled to “get with the program" so that they may not miss out on the lavish gifts bestowed upon bride and groom. Thus, the needy are rankled by envy and greed and allow their base impulses to be the driving motivation behind their marriage.
When greed is not impelling them to tie the knot, they are also chafed by a sense of being short-changed when they see their recently-married dunce of a co-worker promoted above them for presumably the added credibility that marriage afforded them. As singles, they know they will never be taken seriously at work.
If it's not a lame stab at credibility that's motivating them to get married, it's the fear that they as the years tick by they are becoming less and less attractive and their looks will no longer obscure their woeful character deficiencies as age scrunches them up into little pinch-faced, leathery imps.
A more egregious reason for marrying is to end the tormented, off-on again-off-on again relationship, which needs the official imprimatur of marriage, followed by divorce, to officially terminate the relationship. I spoke to a marriage counselor once who told me that some couples were so desperate to break-up for good that they actually got married, then divorced, for this purpose.
Other pathological reasons to marry are to find a loathsome spouse in order to spite one’s parents or to set a wedding date in order to hire a personal trainer and finally lose those thirty pounds one has been carrying for too long.
Envy, avarice, spite, and vanity fuel both needy men and woman alike. However, there is a certain type of needy man, whom we'll call the Man-Child, who finds that it is easier to marry his girlfriend than it is to have to listen to her constant nagging about their need to get married. His girlfriend’s constant harping about the fact their relationship hasn’t taken the “next logical step” presents a burden so great that marriage in comparison seems benign. Even if the Man-Child has not developed the maturity to marry, even if he isn’t sure if he’s truly in love, even if he is still inextricably linked to some former girlfriend that his current girlfriend does not know about, even if he knows in his heart of hearts that he is not hard-wired for marriage, even if he harbors a secret defect that renders him a liability to any woman, he will dismiss all of these factors and rush into a marriage in order to alleviate his current source of anxiety and suffering, which is the incessant barrage of his girlfriend’s grievances about them not being married.
Indeed, some of needy man’s worst decisions have been made in order to quell a discontented woman. The Man-Child's eagerness to quiet a woman’s discontent points to a larger defect, namely, his spinelessness, which, if left unchecked, turns him into the Go-With-the-Flow-Guy. As the name suggests, this type of man offers no resistance, even in large-scale decisions that affect his destiny. Put this man in a situation where his girlfriend, his friends, and his family are all telling him that “it’s time to get married,” and he will, as his name suggests, simply “go with the flow.” He will allow everyone else to make the wedding plans, he’ll let someone fit him for a wedding suit, he’ll allow his mother to pick out the ring, he’ll allow his fiancé to pick out the look and flavor of the wedding cake and then on the day of the wedding, he simply “shows up” with all the passion of a turnip.
The Man-Child's passivity and his aversion to argument insure marital longevity. However, there are drawbacks. Most notably, he will over time become so silent that his wife won’t even be able to get a word out of him. Over the course of their fifty-year marriage he’ll go with her to restaurants with a newspaper and read it, ignoring her. His impassivity is so great that she could tell him about the “other man” she is seeing and he wouldn’t blink an eye. At home he is equally reticent, watching TV or reading with an inexpressive, dull-eyed demeanor suggestive of a half dead lizard.
Whatever this reptilian man lacks as a social animal is made up by the fact that he is docile and is therefore non-threatening, a condition that everyone, including his wife, prefers to the passionate male beast whose strong, irreverent opinions will invariably rock the boat and deem that individual a trouble maker. The Go-With-the-Flow-Guy, on the other hand, is reliably safe and as such makes for controlling women a very good catch in spite of his tendency to be as charismatic and flavorful as a cardboard wafer.
A desperate marriage motivation exclusively owned by needy, immature men is the belief that since they have pissed off just about every other woman on the planet, they need to find refuge by marrying the only woman whom they haven’t yet thoroughly alienated—their current girlfriend. According to sports writer Rick Reilly, baseball slugger Barry Bonds’ short-lived reality show was a disgrace in part because for Reilly the reality show is “the last bastion of the scoundrel.” Likewise, for many men who have offended over 99% of the female race with their pestilent existence, marriage is the last sanctuary for the despised male who has stepped on so many women’s toes that he is, understandably, a marked man.
Therefore, these men aren’t so much getting married as much as they are enlisting in a “witness protection program.” They are after all despised and targeted by their past female enemies for all their lies and betrayals and running out of allies they see that marriage makes a good cover as they try to blend in with mainstream society and take on a role that is antithetical to their single days as lying, predatory scoundrels.
The analogy between marriage and a witness protection program is further developed when we see that for many men marriage is their final stab at earning public respectability because they are, as married men, proclaiming to the world that they have voluntarily shackled themselves with the chains of domesticity in order that they may be spared greater punishments, the bulk of which will be exacted upon by the women whom they used and manipulated for so many years.
Because it is assumed that their wives will keep them in check, their wives become, in a way, equivalent to the ankle bracelet transmitters worn by parolees who are only allowed to travel within certain parameters. Marriage anchors man close to the home and, combined with the wife’s reliable issuing of house chores and other domestic duties, the shackled man is rendered safely tethered to his “home base” where his wife can observe him sharply to make sure he doesn’t backslide into the abhorrent behavior of his past single life.
Many men will see the above analysis of marriage as proof that their fear of marriage as a prison was right all along, but what they should learn from the analogy between marriage and prison is that they are more productive, more socialized, more softened around his hard edges, and more protected, both from the outside world and from themselves by being shackled to their domestic duties. With these improvements in their lives, they have actually, within limits, attained a freedom they could never find in single life.
Comments