Patriotism: Part 2

September 11 was a horrific day, a tragic day, and everybody knows that. Nothing can condone that kind of attack on the American people, or any people for that matter. It was brutal and savage, and brought upon a tidal wave of American vengeance on the Middle East. Over ten years later, we not only continue to morn the great losses of that day, we continue our campaign of hatred and violence in the Middle East. We were so horrified, grieved, furious and filled with so-called American pride that we sought to make everyone else pay. We did not want to stop with punishing a few people who may have been responsible for the crime; we wanted to punish everyone, especially if they wore headdresses or had a Muslim name. There have been instances here in America where one person killed another simply because they "looked" Muslim. I think patriotism in American changed that day. For a long time, patriotism did mean pride in your country, loving your country, whatever you think your country is. However, after that day patriotism became a much more heinous term. It now goes beyond loving your country, it is hating others. Beyond being proud of your country, it is thinking ill of others. Beyond wanting to protect the freedom of the individuals in your country, it is taking away the freedom of the individuals of others. I have heard over and over again the supremacy, the arrogance, and the ignorance spewing out of the mouths of Americans still filled with hatred because of that day, still looking for revenge,  still preaching about America. It's the greatest nation on Earth, they say. So, our citizens and their lives must take priority over everyone else in the world. I think it is more than understandable to be angry, and to be pained, over the loss of loved ones, and to want the ones behind the attacks to be punished, but the men that flew those planes are already dead. I do not think that it means that we need to kill hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern people to avenge the lives of the few thousand American people, especially when so many of those people are soldiers or civilians who had nothing to do with those attacks. Their lives will not bring back the lives we lost that day. I've heard that if you don't support the war(s) then you are un-American, un-patriotic. Well I support justice, not war. If that makes me un-patriotic, then so be it. I will not condone the killing of civilians on either side. I don't believe in it.

Patriotism: Part 1

This was a very unexpected topic, but one that I am very pleased to discuss. Compared to my family I have always felt somewhat unpatriotic, without even really ever understanding what it means to be patriotic in the first place. For some reason I always assumed that being patriotic had to do with more than simply being proud of the country you were born in, but I wasn't completely sure of the implications behind it all. Whenever I speak to self-proclaimed patriots about America, they often act or outright say that America is the greatest country in the world and that we can basically do no wrong. They are typically huge supporters of the war(s), and often use derogatory remarks when referring to foreigners, particularly anyone from the Middle East. I have heard on several occasions people talking about the lives of foreigners as less important than the lives of Americans, and even talk of these foreigners deserving to die -because of the country they were born in-. These are all issues Jensen addressed in his essay, and they are very dangerous beliefs for anyone to have. Jensen, in my opinion, correctly identifies these and many more disturbing aspects of patriotism. These aspects either are or lead to feelings of arrogance, ignorance, superiority, and a general lack of respect for other human life. I too believe that patriotism can have dangerous consequences when taken too far, and I think it normally is. I don't think there is anything wrong with being proud of your country, but I think patriotism goes beyond that. Patriotism has become ethnocentrism, and that is an idea no country can afford to keep.

Claims 2 & 3 in Dream Theory

Here are the second two claims again; 

2.) "that these infantile wishes welled up from the unconscious in sleep, and needed to be disguised and censored" 

3.) "that dreams can be interpreted and they can only be interpreted correctly by the use of free association to the dream material in the transference relationship with the psychoanalyst" 

As for the second claim, I agree completely that many of our wishes are unconscious, and that these unconscious wishes make their way into our dreams. I will even grant that there may be some wishes that are so dangerous our mind tries to disguise and censor them. However, I must again protest the "infantile" part. What wishes could an infant have that are so dangerous they must disguise them from themselves? In childhood, adolescence, and adulthood dreams grow increasingly complex, with many hidden symbols and meanings. A part of this change may have something to do with wishes that need to be disguised, but I think that change would happen anyways. I don't think dreams are so complex just because we are trying to hide something from ourselves. On the contrary, I have always thought that your mind was trying to make you more aware of something, then to try to hide anything. The third claim is a little trickier. I do believe that all dreams are meaningful and can and should be interpreted, but can't you do that yourself? I don't think you need a psychoanalyst to correctly interpret the madness of your own mind. You should know yourself better than anyone else would know you, so why wouldn't you be the perfect person to interpret your own dreams? Sure, it might help to look up certain dreams in books or online, it might even help you gain better insight into certain reoccurring symbols or situations in your dreams. However, I still think that in the end you can correctly interpret your dreams without the help of a psychoanalyst. 

Claim 1 in Dream Theory

As I mentioned before, Hobson pointed out three important factors of Freud's Dream Theory. Here is the first one again; 

1.) "that wishes are the instigators of dreams and in fact they are repressed infantile wishes" 

If anyone doesn't know, I am a huge fan of Freud's. However, so far I have not been able to completely agree or disagree with any one of his theories, I always end up with agreeing with this part, and disagreeing with that part, and so on. I have the same problem here. For example, I agree that our secret wishes, our hidden thoughts and desires, etc. which are usually repressed, are strong instigators of dreams. On the other hand, to suggest that they are repressed infantile wishes seems to me to be completely absurd. People dream of such extraordinarily complex things and situations, and things that in our infancy we couldn't even possibly know about. In our infancy we seem to only wish for very simple things, things to eat and drink, a warm soft place to sleep, room to play, and loving arms to hold us. I don't see how dreams about going to school in your underwear or falling down a flight of stairs or having sex, or being chased goes relate to infantile wishes. Now, I think many dreams do go back to childhood, even early childhood, but I think it would be quite a stretch to try to relate most common dreams all the way back to infancy. 

Dream Content

I was almost shocked when Hobson seemed to suggest that there is no difference between manifest and latent content in dreams, and that dreams are random, unpredictable, and motivationally neutral. Those are, in my opinion, very careless remarks to make. Can he really find no patterns whatsoever in dreams? In what kinds of people dream certain kinds of dreams in certain circumstances? No patterns within the similar images and situations people experience in dreams? If he can find no patterns, no reason to look further into distinguishing the different types of content in dreams, he is obviously refusing to see them. The way he dismisses these aspects of dreams, like content, so easily makes it seem like he thinks dreams are meaningless and unimportant, which I think is a huge mistake. I appreciate that he says you may be able to draw some meaning from then, but I don't like the implication that dreams have no intrinsic meaning. I think dreams have a very powerful influence over people and shouldn't be dismissed so lightly, without seriously studying them on a deep level. Dreams can be reflective of what's going on in the back of your mind or in your everyday life, and they are certainly very meaningful. I think the content of dreams is the most important thing about them. The obvious symbols and the hidden meaning within the symbols if of the upmost importance not only to the dreamer, but also potentially to psychoanalysts and psychologists in general. I think Hobson should have looked a little closer in to dream content.

Freud's Dream Theory

Allan Hobson identified three cardinal points of Freud's Dream Theory; 


1.) "that wishes are the instigators of dreams and in fact they are repressed infantile wishes" 
2.) "that these infantile wishes welled up from the unconscious in sleep, and needed to be disguised and censored" 
3.) "that dreams can be interpreted and they can only be interpreted correctly by the use of free association to the dream material in the transference relationship with the psychoanalyst"  


Hobson made clear in the article that he felt we should dismiss Freud's Dream Theory entirely, but I don't think he did a very good job in trying to dismiss those three claims. He stated again and again that Freud's theory is untestable, and therefore unscientific. Although Freud may have only written about his own dreams and didn't test his theory on other people, that does not automatically mean that no one could ever design an experiment that tests how a person dreams. Just because there may not be conclusive evidence supporting Freud's theory at this particular moment in time does not mean that we should simply assume that he was wrong or do away with his theory all together. I don't think he gave any good reasons why wishes would not at least help to instigate dreams, or why hidden wishes, desires, fears, etc. would not play an active role in our dreams. And oftentimes when a person has a thought, desire, etc. that seems to dark, gruesome, etc. we do try to consciously repress it. So why would we not do the same thing in our dreams by actively trying to disguise or censor that same thought or desire? And perhaps we don't need a specialized psychoanalyst to interpret our dreams for us, but can we honestly deny that they might have some keen insight into our dreams that even we may not possess? I think it was very foolish of Hobson to try to dismiss Freud so quickly and easily, and I was not convinced by any of his arguments at all. 

Vegetarianism & Ecofeminism Part 4

If you couldn't tell, I really didn't like this article. I don't think it defended vegetarianism very well and I think it did a terrible job of trying to equate patriarchy with meat eating. I will admit that there may be some small similarities between meat eating and male dominance, but vegetarianism alone is clearly not going to overthrow the patriarchy. It is actually pretty foolish to presume that there is any kind of real correlation between meat eating and patriarchy or vegetarianism and matriarchy. Besides that, becoming a vegetarian does not offer any solution to the "problem" of male dominance. Furthermore, women are not usually looked upon as mere “possessions” any more, they are not solely sex objects and they are not the only ones who are sexually objectified, and a lot of women eat meat. Women can be in a relationship or marriage with a man and still retain their individuality. Women are able to do paid work, vote in elections, and receive an education. Women in the Western world have a lot of independence for living in a patriarchy. And although women still have a lot more ground to gain in terms of egalitarianism, you can't simply ignore all that women have accomplished thus far. Women can be vegetarians if they want, but they don't need vegetarianism to challenge the patriarchy. 

Vegetarianism & Ecofeminisim Part 3

One thing that really bothered me about the article is when the author talks about how men “consume” women through sex shows, pornography, and prostitution, and makes no mention of how men are "consumed" by women in the same way. The focus is put completely on men and their sexual "appetites", as if women don't have any! As if women are the pinnacles of holiness or something and men are nothing more than lustful beasts. That's just completely biased and unfair. It may be true that the sexual “appetites” of men are aroused by women in a similar way to how their taste buds might be aroused by food, or animal flesh in particular, but doesn't the very same thing happen to women? Are men not just as frequently sexually objectified, and treated as "pieces of meat"? Women can just as easily “consume” men and lust after their flesh. Both men and women have distinct sexual “appetites”, so if you want to talk about the "consumption" of women by men, you have an obligation to talk about the "consumption" of men by women as well. 

Vegetarianism & Ecofeminism Part 2

The author claims that women/wives, in the Western world, are still looked upon as possession by their husbands, but I'm not convinced. It seems to me that that claim is fairly outdated. Of course women have been treated as possessions in the past, and there are still many other cultures across the world that still hold this ideal, I don't believe that this is a widespread ideal in modern day America. Obviously there are still some men that feel this way and do treat women as possessions, but nowadays that seems to be more the exception than the rule. It appears to be commonly accepted now that women are no longer looked at as objects or possessions. The author also says that during a marriage ceremony a woman’s identity is completely destroyed by uniting a husband and wife, which I think is fairly ridiculous. Arranged marriages are no longer common in the western world, women can keep their maiden name after marrying, and continue to have many individual rights while in the marriage. Divorce is also usually fairly easy to obtain, so no woman has to be stuck in a marriage if she wants to get out. A woman still retains her individuality while being in a marriage, she doesn't lose who her identity the way the author claims. 

Vegetarianism & Ecofeminism Part 1

There are so many things I found inadequate about this article I don't even know where to begin. For one thing, I really didn’t like that the author refused to mention what happens when women eat meat. You can’t just assume that women don't eat meat, because that would be absurd. There are many women who eat meat, like me. I occasionally enjoy cow, pig, chicken, and even fish, though not very often. I also consider myself to be a feminist. So where does that leave me? Should feminism prohibit me from eating something I enjoy? What does meat-eating say about me, and about all of the other women who are meat-eaters as well? Does it mean we are trying to assert our dominance over other women by making ourselves more “masculine”? I don't think so. The author undoubtedly should have addressed the "issue" of women meat-eaters in this article. Another thing that really bothered me was that the author could only try to find the link between meat eating and male dominance in the Western world. There are many cultures all over the world that are big on hunting and eating meat which are incredibly egalitarian, and I feel that that should have been mentioned. What about the article bothered you the most?