Lord Of The Flies By William Golding Essay Example For College

It appears that I have been stranded on this island for an eternity. Our sole opportunity of being rescued was foiled by the hunters, now recognized as Jack and his group. Their responsibility was to maintain the fire always, enabling a passing ship to spot the smoke and come to our aid. Clearly, this basic task was beyond their capabilities, resulting in us missing what could have been our singular chance of survival. To compound matters, I am now the object of ridicule among all those stranded on this island with me.

Due to Jack and his cruel tribe of savages, I am currently experiencing heightened insecurity and fear. Their actions have resulted in the deterioration of my vision. Jack is an individual devoid of compassion who should never have come into existence. Although I make efforts to project bravery and nobility, he genuinely terrifies me. Piggy voiced his concern, stating, “I dread him, which is how I recognize him. When you feel fear towards someone, you develop a hatred for them that consumes your thoughts.”

Each time I encounter him once more, it feels like suffocation, similar to asthma. From the day we first crossed paths, Jack consistently taunted me about my weight, glasses, speech, and asthma. Regardless of my actions or words, it always bothered him. Jack and his group had an excessive fixation on hunting for food, which led to negative consequences. “You and your hunting obsession, Jack Merridew! We could have gone home-” (page 70). Considering the uncertain duration of our stay on this island, I believe we should prioritize constructing sturdier shelters while ensuring we possess a means to signal passing ships and remaining unified.

However, Jack organized everyone into groups and hunted relentlessly. Today, Jack went too far by stealing my glasses. To make matters worse, one of the lenses was already broken from when he threw them on the ground. Jack and his tribe took my glasses because they needed them for starting a fire and keeping warm. Instead of asking, he raided our shelter during the night to take them. Ralph, Sam, Eric, and I plan to climb up the mountains together to confront Jack and insist that they return my glasses immediately. Hopefully, everything will be resolved in the end.

Charles Horton Cooley And The Symbolic Interactionism Theory

Charles Horton Cooley and the Symbolic Interactionism Theory Should we associate the abandonment of ‘self’ with symbolic interactionism? Do you feel the need to ‘change your stripes’ to fit in with society? ‘An individual is an abstraction unknown to experience, and so likewise is society when regarded as something apart from individuals….

Society and individuals do not denote separable phenomena, but are simply collective and distributive aspects of the same thing…’ (Thomas Francis O’Dea) In this aspect of his theory, Charles Horton Cooley, a symbolic interactionist, concluded that our sense of ’self’ develops from interactions with others. Cooley described this process as the looking -glass self. The looking- glass self consists of three principle elements. We first imagine how we appear to those around us. We may feel that others see us as monotonous or quiet.

Therefore, we try to interpret the reactions of others when we are around them to confirm if what we think is true. If others seem to avoid you or go out of their way to make sure you don‘t see them at all, your typical assumption would be that they have seen or heard something to turn them off from wanting to be an acquaintance of yours . Secondly, in order of the concept, one imagines the judgment that others may be making regarding that appearance. In other words, how their actions must look to those observing.

If someone saw another person walking down the street with all sorts of colors in their hair, one must wonder what compelled them to do such a thing. But if that person turns around with the crazy hair that’s out of the norm and on their shirt it says, ‘I am doing what I want to my hair before chemo takes it from me,’ then there you go. Judgment served. Lastly, how Cooley put down in words the symbolic interactionism theory was how one feels, either prideful or mortified, about appearances and other judgments of that imagined appearance.

People changing themselves or even rebelling against change due to the judgments of others they interact with. A great portion of peoples ‘identities’ are based on speech sounding ignorant or illiterate, appearance with baggy clothes, ripped jeans, a face piercing, or tattoos. Actions are another way people can be judged, or even down to what their beliefs are. With that stated above, I will explain my reaction to the theory. Cooley states that “ a person’s self grows out of a person’s commerce with others. ” (Coser) Well, doesn’t that create a society?

A society, or a human society, is a group of people related to each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory, subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations. (Wikipedia) So where does an image come from that the society can agree on and want to make ‘theirs‘? How do they want others to perceive them? From one person? In my bluntness, I deem most individuals are afraid to express their own opinion. Almost to the point of creating a ’free market’ idea on the concept of opinion.

One person comes up with the opinion and the rest of society, if they feel it is not harmful to themselves, goes along with the insight not speaking up to change or viewing a different insight. This creates separate subcultures in society such as the “punk” subculture or the “thug” subculture. Because one person thought of the idea to shave both sides of the head and spike the middle and color it blue for an outrageous reaction, others who were intrigued by the idea and wanted to express them selves with out being an individual but being an individual ’society’.

Within the ’thug’ subculture, most people on the outside decipher them by wearing their clothes too big. Is that the right way to pick them out? If it is, than how do today’s youth in middle class suburbia sport that style, they have never lived in the ghetto and experienced things like supposed genuine thugs have. In this manner people’s individual self’s have come from whom they interact with supporting Cooley’s theory. The only problem with this idea is that it leaves the idea of originality to be an outcast on society. Being different from every one is a call for prejudice, harassment, and not being part of the societies typical norms.

We should be able to see a person for their general or master accomplishments and their abilities…not if the society excepts them as an individual. The theory it self is an outline for and how to make someone an outcast. If a person comes along and is living in society and doesn’t bother too much about his appearance or materialistic things, is he/she an outcast. By Cooley’s theory he/she is an out cast because in his theory he states, ‘The imagination of our appearance to the other person, the imagination of his judgment of that appearance, and some sort of self-feeling, such as pride or mortification. (Coser) If this individual chooses to believe and go by what he wants and not what the society wants him to go by, he is shunned and considered an outcast, when in actuality society is the outcast for trying to be like every one else. Cooley also states that ‘If…we say that society is an organism, we mean…that it is a complex of forms of processes each of which is living and growing by interaction with the others, the whole being so unified that what takes place in one part affects all the rest. It is a vast tissue of reciprocal activity. (Coser) In this part of his theory I interpreted it as if we deny the chance for your individual to grow we deny our society to grow and vice versa. With this part of the theory I agree. An example of this is teen pregnancy. If you got pregnant in the 1950’s you were considered soiled and excluded, but as it got more common in society people began to accept it more. Now if you get pregnant as a teenager it is almost like a cultural norm. In that aspect changing people and their values has changed society and their values.

You can’t change one with out changing the other. Now with that into consideration, to change society you would just have to change the individuals idea’s, but they get their ideas from society. So how do you change society? Well Cooley said “ Our life is one human whole, and if we are to have any real knowledge of it we must see it as such. If we cut it up it dies in the process. ” (Cohen, Marshall J. ) In this part of the theory I think he is trying to conclude that dissecting too far into the relationship of an individual and society is just impossible.

That while you are looking for the connection, you will lose your connection with society, and in conclusion have self abandonment. Life is full of mystery and surprise, to find all the answers would just ruin life. There would be nothing else for you to look for while you live. I hope that when my life flashes before my eyes that, Cooley’s theory proves false: that I am the exception to the cultural norm. Bibliography: “Charles Horton Cooley 1864-1929 | Bolender. com. ” Welcome to Bolender Initiatives | Bolender. om. Web. 02 Oct. 2011. . “Charles Horton Cooley 1864-1929 | Bolender. com. ” Welcome to Bolender Initiatives | Bolender. com. Web. 02 Oct. 2011. . “Charles Horton Cooley 1864-1929 | Bolender. com. ” Welcome to Bolender Initiatives | Bolender. com. Web. 02 Oct. 2011. . “Cooley, Charles Horton. ” Info:Main Page – New World Encyclopedia. Web. 02 Oct. 2011. . “Society. ” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 02 Oct. 2011. . “WHAT SOCIOLOGY HAS TO OFFER. ” Office of Information Technologies. Web. 02 Oct. 2011. .

The Lack Of Women Rights In Saudi Arabia

The Lack of Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia is a monarchy that strictly obliges their citizens to comply with the constitution, with the laws of Islam as its foundation. However, the laws in Saudi Arabia were created in accordance to how the kingdom’s councils’ interpreted the Qur’an, Islam’s holy book. According to the council, equality between women and men is against the laws of God and the law of nature dictated by women’s physiology.

These beliefs positioned women in Saudi Arabia subservient to men as restrictions are strictly applied on their way of living. Women in the kingdom live under constant legal and cultural prohibitions, whether in the family or outside their homes. Some of these are the requirement to veil women, the inferior education provided to women, and the lack of freedom of movement. According to Laura Kaya in Polygamy and Law in Contemporary Saudi Arabia, in order to keep modesty for both women and men, women were required to veil themselves (698).

It is said that the concept of veiling does not only protect women’s modesty by being able to reserve their physical appearance solely for their spouse, but it also protects men’s modesty by keeping their minds off impure and lustful thoughts. Women are required to cover their bodies with an abaya, a black and loose cloak that covers the woman’s body from the neck all the way to the feet. In addition to covering their bodies, they are also to cover their hair with head coverings known as the hijab. In exchange of the belief of keeping modesty by covering the body, women did not have the freedom to be clothed the way they wanted.

The concept of veiling may not be perceived as oppressive in itself. If it was legitimately for the purpose of being modest, which is required in the Qur’an, it would merely be an acceptable, cultural norm. However, the problem arises when veiling is forced on women with regimental inflexibility. Sifa Mtango states in A State of Oppression? Women Rights in Saudi Arabia, “Given that the Qur’an requires modest clothing for both men and women, enforcing the rule would not be discriminatory if men in Saudi Arabia were also subject to the same strictness” (54).

Women, who are not properly covered in public, often receive looks of disapproval and are seen as sinful. Religious police usually wander around public buildings or commercial areas to ensure that women are meeting the clothing requirements. They have been given the right to request an uncovered woman to leave the public facility or, in the worst cases, sentence the woman to lashes. Uncovered women are intolerable in Saudi society because they are not following the constitution’s rules of dressing modestly by covering their bodies. In addition to women’s veiling, all public facilities are also segregated as a matter of law.

This segregation means that the services women and men have access to are different, often to women’s detriment. An area in which segregation disadvantages women is in education. Women and men attend separated universities and schools. Women’s facilities are substantially inferior to the men’s. According to Sifa Mtango in A State of Oppression? Women Rights in Saudi Arabia, “Class sizes for women are smaller; teachers for men are better trained, with more than 34% of the professors at the men’s universities holding doctorates, as compared with only 3% of their counterparts at women’s universities” (55).

Access to common facilities, such as libraries, is limited. For instance, Abdallah Elamin reveals in Males’ Attitudes Towards Working Females in Saudi Arabia that at the King Saud University in Riyadh, women are allowed to use the library only one morning every week, and the men use it the rest of the time (750). Girls are educated in inferior conditions to boys, and this denies equal standards that would place them on an equal level. Women, who can only use the library once a week, are denied equal access to what their male counterparts enjoy.

The Saudi attitude toward women’s education is that it is essential that female students be steered toward feminine disciplines, such as there is no need for women to compete with men in disciplines that are not suited to their nature. This firm belief is what continually supports women’s segregation and women’s inferior way of being educated. Another freedom that women of Saudi Arabia do not have is the freedom of movement. Women in the kingdom are subjected into a system where they are required to be accompanied by a male guardian whenever they are outside.

In Empowering Saudi Arabia Women, Delina Hanley says, “This is characterized by many features of differential treatment that may be discriminatory between men and women in marriage, divorce, and related matters” (73). This notion of male guardianship has been extended to restrict women’s movement within and outside Saudi Arabia. Within the country, women are banned from driving, and they are not allowed to travel without the permission of their male guardian and in the company of a male chaperon. The reason women were banned o drive is that driving requires women to unveil themselves, as well as facilitating mixing with unrelated men which would provoke evil deeds and thoughts. Delina Hanley also reports in Empowering Saudi Arabia Women, “In November 1990, some women, who demonstrated against the ban by dismissing their drivers and driving or riding as passengers of women drivers through downtown Riyadh, were immediately arrested, and some religious leaders petitioned for the women to be beheaded” (74). The lack of women’s rights to travel independently was believed to benefit both men and women in protecting their morals and decency.

Women of Saudi Arabia have always been living by the government’s constitution that they are inferior to men, but as years pass by, gradual realizations and little changes have been happening. According to Abdallah Elamin in Males’ Attitudes Towards Females in Saudi Arabia, “The modernist scholars, dismayed by the situation of the Arabian women and the lack of their economic and political participation, encouraged women’s rise and participation and declared that a certain amount of mixing between gender should be expected and accepted. ” (749).

This realization by modern scholars served as a sign of hope for women who desired more freedom in the kingdom. In The Meaning of Rights for Women, Madawi Al-Rashid says, “A new all-women university was created in 2008, and last year, the king pledged that women would be allowed to vote and stand in future municipal elections” (14). In addition, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has been becoming more lenient with the consequences for women’s disobedience to the laws, such as women illegally driving and women not being covered properly in public.

Women caught driving would just be sent home instead of being imprisoned, while women seen inappropriately dressed would be asked to change their clothing instead of being lashed. Inspite of the little and slow changes that has been occurring in Saudi Arabia, the majority of women are still dissatisfied with their lack of rights. Women in Saudi Arabia are denied a number of their human rights as a result of the kingdom’s Islamic laws.

These laws and practices give women an inferior status to men, fixing them with stereotypical roles that are not consisted with the needs of a Saudi woman. The Saudi government states that since the family is still considered as the basic social unit under Islam, it is necessary for women to find a major part of their fulfillment by accepting a primary obligation to the family. Criticism of

Saudi Arabia is not aimed at its culture and religion, but at oppressive ideologies and the injustices that come from the denomination of women. Women’s rights are human rights, and Saudi Arabia has to provide women with these human rights to be considered a just country. With the limited and the gradual changes that are taking place though, women still have a long journey ahead in order to pull away from Saudi Arabia’s legal and cultural prohibition.

error: Content is protected !!