"Fat Pig" was one of the plays we saw this past week-end, that challenged the social value of a sleek and lean body. But, it also revealed another value that was disturbing. What one would sacrifice for success.
Our country values success, as defined by rising up the corporate ladder. Social climbing is one way of doing this and unfortunately, since we are animals that make judgment based on our first impressions, one's appearance can "make" or break further interaction.
The cultural norm of appearing "in control " works out to be a judgement regarding a person's weight and their ability to manage that weight. Over-weight people are viewed as careless, lazy, and undisciplined. In reality, this judgement may or may not be the case.
I have read where research has been done that reveals society's value of the appearance of a wife. A wife who is considered attractive is an assest to her husband. People judge him as more intelligent, if he has chosen an attractive wife. I'm sure there is a reason in evolutionary science that would reveal the reasons behind such a value.
What would be the better alternative for society? Society should value healthy choices because it is in the better interests of one's future health, as well as present well-being. But, the question is not whether a fat person should be healthy or unhealthy, but what should be our attitude toward the obese? Is obesity a social taboo such that one would "shun" and obese person.
Helen's boyfriend understood the "costs" to such of crossing such a taboo. HE would be judged as careless, and undisciplined if he chose to marry Hellen by those he might need to impress to rise up the corporate ladder to success. He had a choice to make, and he chose what would be the best for himself.
Aren't we all prone to choose the easier path when it comes to social convention? Don't we ignore the possibility that the social convention needs changing? Do we question our motives or are we aware of the reasons why we choose what we do?
Helen "got the message", a fat wife equalled a bad life for her boyfriend. And he was unwilling to take the leap to change her, himself or his social environment.
Showing posts with label obesity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obesity. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Challenging Social Conventions
Social conventions are considered to be the "norm". And norms are the values a certain society holds. This week-end, my husband and I saw two plays that challenged two values in our society; appearance, and conventional ideas.
"Fat Pig" was a humorous jab at our society's value of "being fit". Being overweight, Helen had had numerous encounters of being the brunt of society's "convention". She coped with the ostericism by learning to "make fun of herself", and to be bluntly forthright about another's thoughts about her "fatness".
Helen had not had a chance at love, as she had been rejected before anyone took the time to know the person behind the "facade", until she met "Ben". The play ended with the sacrifice of Helen, on the altars of society's conventional wisdom; one cannot succeed with a fat wife!
The other play, "The Trial of Barach Spinoza" was a true rendition of a Jewish philosopher, who challenged the conventional wisdom of Judiasm, as well as the status quo in a Dutch Reformed Amersterdam in the 1600's.
Spinoza was painted as a radically committed person who was willing to "die" for his faith. But, his faith was not one of conventional wisdom, and his death would not be a physical, but social one.
Society, as an entity itself, maintains its conventions with rules that guard and guide the "faithful". Society has much to loose if it conventions do not maintain their power, as society would end in chaos and be destroyed. The "gatekeepers" of tradition are those that help to maintain these conventions.
The individual, as a person, is lost within these systems, if these systems are too constrictive.
Helen's "rebuke" was not a trial, like Spinoza's, but it was nevertherless, a painful realization that she was to be an outcast to a life of being loved and valued, in her own right.
Spinoza's freethought threatened the status quo. And the choice for Spinoza was inevitably a painful realization that he would not be the "choir boy" within his "Jewish tradition". But, being the "choir boy" was never Spinoza's goal in the first place. Spinoza's friend, who betrayed him to the "authorities", was seeking to be a "choir boy", at least at first. Spinoza's intellectual honesty and commitment to be "true to himself" was the threat to society's traditional view.
One has to ask whether the values that society affirms are values that are truly "righteous"? Or are these conventional values "self affirming rights" to discriminate against another? And if one discriminates, then is there a conscious choice about the reasons why one discriminates?
People, for the most part, are not self-reflective enough to consider whether the value of a human being is to be put above social convention. Social convention is "an easy way out" of an uncomfortable challenge to one's social values.
I haven't come to my conclusions about all the why's or why not's, but I will be thinking about it this week.
"Fat Pig" was a humorous jab at our society's value of "being fit". Being overweight, Helen had had numerous encounters of being the brunt of society's "convention". She coped with the ostericism by learning to "make fun of herself", and to be bluntly forthright about another's thoughts about her "fatness".
Helen had not had a chance at love, as she had been rejected before anyone took the time to know the person behind the "facade", until she met "Ben". The play ended with the sacrifice of Helen, on the altars of society's conventional wisdom; one cannot succeed with a fat wife!
The other play, "The Trial of Barach Spinoza" was a true rendition of a Jewish philosopher, who challenged the conventional wisdom of Judiasm, as well as the status quo in a Dutch Reformed Amersterdam in the 1600's.
Spinoza was painted as a radically committed person who was willing to "die" for his faith. But, his faith was not one of conventional wisdom, and his death would not be a physical, but social one.
Society, as an entity itself, maintains its conventions with rules that guard and guide the "faithful". Society has much to loose if it conventions do not maintain their power, as society would end in chaos and be destroyed. The "gatekeepers" of tradition are those that help to maintain these conventions.
The individual, as a person, is lost within these systems, if these systems are too constrictive.
Helen's "rebuke" was not a trial, like Spinoza's, but it was nevertherless, a painful realization that she was to be an outcast to a life of being loved and valued, in her own right.
Spinoza's freethought threatened the status quo. And the choice for Spinoza was inevitably a painful realization that he would not be the "choir boy" within his "Jewish tradition". But, being the "choir boy" was never Spinoza's goal in the first place. Spinoza's friend, who betrayed him to the "authorities", was seeking to be a "choir boy", at least at first. Spinoza's intellectual honesty and commitment to be "true to himself" was the threat to society's traditional view.
One has to ask whether the values that society affirms are values that are truly "righteous"? Or are these conventional values "self affirming rights" to discriminate against another? And if one discriminates, then is there a conscious choice about the reasons why one discriminates?
People, for the most part, are not self-reflective enough to consider whether the value of a human being is to be put above social convention. Social convention is "an easy way out" of an uncomfortable challenge to one's social values.
I haven't come to my conclusions about all the why's or why not's, but I will be thinking about it this week.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Choices Are Necessary for Moral Development
There is out-rage on the radio and T.V. concerning Michele Obama's new obesity agenda. Some believe that government has "no right" to suggest or limit choices, even if they are detrimental to health. Others believe that unless government intervenes, then all of us will "pay the costs" of unwise choices of others. Which is more important?
Those that believe that government must intervene must have some understanding of their priorities. Michele's has chosen health issues. Every "wife-in-chief" has had some form of social concern that she has undertaken, but Michele's concern has become a "mandate" for all of us. Instead of a moral example, this administration seeks to limit personal decision making or punish or impugne those choices that are "not good for societal flourishing". Society comes first, not individual choice and value.
Just recently, it was discussed that those fast food resturants that give a "prize" to children in their "Happy Meals" should only put the prize in the healthy choice. Government is playing the parent in these situations. Is this the place of government?
Those that argue that without government intervention, then American obesity will rise, as it has over the last decade. Parents have seemed to be absent or uncaring of these values for their children. Health care costs will increase due to the diseases associated with obesity and the rest of society will suffer due to the costs to healthcare. Children have also suffered and will continue to suffer unless government intervenes.
Although I agree that we should be concerned about health and healthcare costs, why hasn't the social norm of American "thinness" made its impact on American choice and value? Would government intervention deter those that are determined to eat unhealthy food? Would the "black market" for unhealthy food arise if givernment regulates our choices? Should corporations be limited and not individuals?
It seems that corporations are in bed with the adminstration, so that the individual will have no re-course but "be forced" to co-operate with such intrusions into the American "way of life".
Is this a way for government to "own" all of us, because of government's "concern", especially in light of the fact that government must begin to think about the costs of healthcare, since it has implemented its healthcare "plan". Isn't a government healthcare plan a way for "leaders" to control more and more of our personal choices and values, as well as our money and where it goes? Where is liberty, then?
Isn't the real reason why healthcare and all other choices are being defined by laws, plans or take-overs by governmnet, really about power and control over our liberties? One by one we are loosing our liberty for "the common good", or for other "noble reasons" that are defined by those over us. No longer is there a "moral majority", but a devious elite aristocracy that limits information to the very people that it is supposed to be responsible to. Where is accountability of the governmen to the people? Now, it seems that the people are accountable to the government!
Government was intended to be self-governance, which means that the individual must determine what values he holds to be the most important for himself, within the boundaries of law. Without the liberty to choose what one values most, isn't government acting "immorally" by asserting their power and limiting human choice, which is the basis of morality itself?
Limiting choice will certainly enslave all of us, as those that believe that the "ends justifies the means" will rationalize anything to get their way. And they will be self satisfied in our suffering because is serves out what they deem as "equal justice" in the larger scale of things.
Those that believe that government must intervene must have some understanding of their priorities. Michele's has chosen health issues. Every "wife-in-chief" has had some form of social concern that she has undertaken, but Michele's concern has become a "mandate" for all of us. Instead of a moral example, this administration seeks to limit personal decision making or punish or impugne those choices that are "not good for societal flourishing". Society comes first, not individual choice and value.
Just recently, it was discussed that those fast food resturants that give a "prize" to children in their "Happy Meals" should only put the prize in the healthy choice. Government is playing the parent in these situations. Is this the place of government?
Those that argue that without government intervention, then American obesity will rise, as it has over the last decade. Parents have seemed to be absent or uncaring of these values for their children. Health care costs will increase due to the diseases associated with obesity and the rest of society will suffer due to the costs to healthcare. Children have also suffered and will continue to suffer unless government intervenes.
Although I agree that we should be concerned about health and healthcare costs, why hasn't the social norm of American "thinness" made its impact on American choice and value? Would government intervention deter those that are determined to eat unhealthy food? Would the "black market" for unhealthy food arise if givernment regulates our choices? Should corporations be limited and not individuals?
It seems that corporations are in bed with the adminstration, so that the individual will have no re-course but "be forced" to co-operate with such intrusions into the American "way of life".
Is this a way for government to "own" all of us, because of government's "concern", especially in light of the fact that government must begin to think about the costs of healthcare, since it has implemented its healthcare "plan". Isn't a government healthcare plan a way for "leaders" to control more and more of our personal choices and values, as well as our money and where it goes? Where is liberty, then?
Isn't the real reason why healthcare and all other choices are being defined by laws, plans or take-overs by governmnet, really about power and control over our liberties? One by one we are loosing our liberty for "the common good", or for other "noble reasons" that are defined by those over us. No longer is there a "moral majority", but a devious elite aristocracy that limits information to the very people that it is supposed to be responsible to. Where is accountability of the governmen to the people? Now, it seems that the people are accountable to the government!
Government was intended to be self-governance, which means that the individual must determine what values he holds to be the most important for himself, within the boundaries of law. Without the liberty to choose what one values most, isn't government acting "immorally" by asserting their power and limiting human choice, which is the basis of morality itself?
Limiting choice will certainly enslave all of us, as those that believe that the "ends justifies the means" will rationalize anything to get their way. And they will be self satisfied in our suffering because is serves out what they deem as "equal justice" in the larger scale of things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
