When do Pictures Become Manipulative?

            I got back from attending my uncle’s graduation ceremony in Indiana yesterday. At the ceremony, my family and I had cameras ready to take pictures and videos, waiting for the speaker to call out my uncle’s name and watch him walk across the stage, clad in a cap and gown, to receive his diploma. It was a major event that he had been waiting for after years and years of effort, as any student would. Taking pictures in times like these are viewed as a necessity because they play such a big role in the future of our lives. Life-changing circumstances, such as graduating college or getting married, are worthy of being captured in a photograph to reminisce about later. They can be motivational reminders that hard work pays off or can simply serve as something to smile about.

            Nevertheless, this obviously isn’t the only reason that photographs are taken. People take pictures of anything and everything, especially as a result of the rise of social media. Users post images of their best moments to create the positive image that everyone wishes to have, making others envious as it seems as though their whole lives are of bliss and perfection. How would anyone know what goes on behind the camera or what happens right after that picture is taken? In this way, photographs can be the “most irresistible form of mental pollution” (Sontag). They are erroneous representations of life—not everything is what it seems. A photograph of a landscape can look beautifully appealing but hides the fact that the water is so polluted that it killed off the fish that once lived there.

            Let’s not forget what I stated earlier. Done for the right reasons, pictures are fine. But once that line is crossed, they are a form of corruption.

Impending Disaster of Society

In modern society, we have grown to take things for granted as our obsession with convenience has dominated, just as Huxley predicted in his Brave New World. We may have a government that places restrictions on us, but there is no force that deprives people of “autonomy, maturity, and history” besides our own selves (Postman). Rules and regulations established by the government in the present day are mainly intended to protect its people rather than take control of their lives and move them around like marionettes, contradicting what Orwell proposed in his novel.

As we become more materialistic and careless, the value of things that used to be very important is lost. For example, libraries are becoming less and less popular because we have lost interest in them and have resorted to technology. Huxley feared that nobody would want to read books anymore, and while that seemed absurd when he wrote it in 1936, it is now becoming a reality (Postman). In school, teachers used to tell students to put their books away when class was starting. Now, hardly anyone says that teachers say to put phones away. Even outside of school, most students do not read books besides what is required as an assignment. Pleasurable laziness has caused this change rather than a figure taking away from the power for us to do so. Society today has allowed people to essentially destroy their own selves. There is only so much time we have left before we become the fictional characters of Brave New World, too caught up in satisfaction to notice the disaster that our lives had become.  

It's Not as Easy as You Think

            Issues such as racism or sexism date back hundreds of years. While many other issues that deal with things like technological advancements have been resolved over the years, prejudice is so deeply rooted in the minds of some that it has not yet been entirely diminished, despite our best efforts. It has been suggested that changing words like “black eye” to “mouse” or the “politically correct lion” to the “monarch of the jungle” will solve these kinds of issues (Kakutani). If only it were that easy to get people to stop thinking of themselves as higher than others simply based on appearance. Such word replacements have been proposed with a good intention of putting an end to the problems that have been pressuring minorities throughout history, but they are not as effective as some might think.

            Engaging in euphemisms that seem to be completely detached from biases can actually cause more harm than good. For example, if someone were to say “ovarimony instead of testimony” for the sake of gender equality, others would probably laugh, which is not what you want when it comes to problems as serious as sexism (Kakutani). Many of these replacement words and phrases actually ridicule and downplay the wrongness in prejudices, countering the whole purpose of using them in the first place. Besides, changing the way people speak does not change their biased mindset, nor will people want to use the euphemisms considering how exaggerated some of them are. It is better to address the issue at hand rather than avoid it by using words deemed to be free of bias.

The Strength in Life and Death

                Despite the obvious and plentiful differences between us, as humans, and essentially anything else that is living, one element remains the same no matter the species—death. The looming and inescapable nature of this presence prompted Virginia Woolf to write “The Death of the Moth”, in which Woolf describes the “helplessness” of a moth as it is dying as a representation for human life. Moths are “insignificant” to us, considering their size and our distaste towards them. The moth, however, does not think of itself as such. Going back to the idea that the moth represents humans, we also do not think of ourselves as “insignificant” and, on the flip side, I doubt the moth would want to be around us either since it would likely be killed on sight. Anyways, the death of the “little creature” was rather brutal and indiscriminate. It was almost as if death teased the moth into thinking it that it would ever stand a chance when it finally managed in “righting itself” although its body was shutting down. Was the last ditch effort worth it?

                Life may seem “pathetic” in comparison to the might of death. There is a strength and “marvelous” aspect to life, however, as the moth continued to fight for its life and make the most of what little time it had left. It could have simply submitted to its upcoming doom, but chose instead to resist the “power of such magnitude”. We continue living our lives even if we know it will end at some point, proving that the persistence of life is a worthy component for the intensity of death.

American Society

It has been unmistakably apparent that American culture is flawed upon reading several passages like “Marrying Absurd”. It is the obsession with “boldness”, convenience, and popularity that has promoted satirical pieces to be written and call out these self-centered principles. I think that there is another driving motive behind the satirical pieces that we read in class as well—the fact that these focuses of society are promoted. People do not see the wrong in them anymore. For example, in Joan Didion’s essay, she uses the “plastic pink flamingo” as a vessel to criticize America’s consumerist culture. Caught up in the flashiness and popularity of the product, Americans of the time disregarded their history of having “hunted flamingos to extinction in Florida” and instead focused on the monetary value of the poor creature’s symbol of extravagance.

I find it rather pitiful that it takes a mocking essay for people to realize the faults in their actions or in the society that they are apart of. But is this enough to spark a change? Would the girl described in the last paragraph of “Marrying Absurd” see the irony and ridiculousness of her wedding if she looked at herself from a third point of view?  While some may individually avoid the pull towards trends or selfishness, it is doubtful that society as a whole will change completely. The dark past of America and today still hold the same primary motive in society—to fulfill self-interests.

Controversy

David Foster Wallace visits a controversial and “uncomfortable” topic in the piece “Consider the Lobster”. Initially, I felt like the first couple of pages were kind of unnecessary or dragged on since he did not dive into his actual argument until page 670. After reading it over again and taking a closer look, however, I realized that the background information was important to his purpose.

Wallace builds credibility through his introduction with facts so readers can see that he knows what he’s doing. He slowly approaches his argument rather than jumping right into the discriminate ethical tendencies of our society. He does not want to scare readers away before he even gets a chance to share his point of view. This is especially crucial considering the fact that his targeted audience is the Gourmet Magazine. He knows that if he stated pointblank that their practices were unjust or that they were not considerate about their choices, the readers would feel attacked. He also relates with the reader by admitting that he is “confused” and feels “selfish interest” just as anyone else would.

While his lengthy use of footnotes might seem a bit excessive, I noticed that he brought up an interesting point on the footnote on page 674. He pushes out of the boundaries of lobster and connects to other animals that are also consumed. He questions if “euphemisms like ‘beef’ and ‘pork’ help us separate the meat we eat from the living creature the meat once was”. Although some may be unopen to the ideas that Wallace wonders of our society, his techniques of writing this piece were effective in at least making them question the morals involved in their actions.

Just Another Fault in Society

We have read many pieces that demonstrate the notion that people can be demoralized by society because of the positions that they are in, even if they put in great effort towards their cause. Society tends to ignore that factor and instead focuses on the helplessness and struggle of hard workers. It deems them unfit to be appreciated or understood and—instead of extending a helping hand—throws them out to drown in their burdens. In Barbara Ehrenreich’s essay, "Serving in Florida", she places herself in the position of a waitress receiving minimum wage to test this idea and finds it to be true. While the job of a waiter is essential to the success of a restaurant and is often a frustrating task, people target their faults like messing up an order or tripping over someone’s foot and spilling a drink. Another example is "On Dumpster Diving", by Lars Eighner, who describes his personal experience with the aftermath of being abandoned by society. He is educated, but he can be viewed as unworthy of social status as a result of his dilemma.

I noticed that the underlying concern in both cases relates back to one of our main focuses in the first semester of class. We analyzed the flaws in the American Dream, one of which was the fact that it does not have a place for people who work hard, although it states that effort brings forth success. These kinds of people deserve to have a proper place in society and be respected.