A Mixing of Ideas

"We can understand the appeal of Cultural Relativism, then, even though theory has serious shortcomings." James Rachels stated this in his article "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism." Rachels makes many points about the shortcomings of Cultural Relativism, at the same time, he pulls out exactly what he sees beneficial from it. Cultural Relativism is based on the fact that cultures have different moral and ethic codes, according to their society. Therefore, it can be assumed wrong to judge these codes according to a different society's dangers. Deduced from this is the fact that there are no universal truths in ethics and morality. Rachels goes on to say that this ultimatum in unsound. He believes that there are some beliefs that have been proven wrong, some codes that are universal, and that some practices are inately wrong. I am of mixed opinion. I agree with some of Rachels's arguments, and believe that he is being too hard on others.
Rachels is from the University of Alabama, and therefore lives in the same culture as we do. In our culture, there are very few gray areas. In fact, we try very hard to define all gray areas. For instance, everyone has different ethnic backgrounds in America. Excepting a few traditions, we all live American lives. We all follow the laws and ethic codes of America. The differences in tradition may be wich holidays we celebrate, not whether or not we kill our children. Cultural Relativism does not fit in our culture. Cultural Relativism gives us no concrete right or wrong, in fact it says there is no such thing. In his own way, James Rachels is rejecting Cultural Relativism in the same manner as our society rejects the bareness of breasts. He is not keeping an open mind, he is attempting to fit this theory into our culture, a theory that does not belong.
This theory of Cultural Relativism, for most Americans, would be better on paper and remaining a theory. Very few people accept the fact that there is no right or wrong. However, the theory is valid. No two cultures are exactly the same, does that mean one is wrong? No, it just means that through different development and views the two cultures have learned to value different things in a different order of priority. Most differences in values between cultures, as Rachels pointed out, can be determined by the different conditions imposed upon the society. Cultural Relativism helps us to understand different cultures. By accepting the fact that there is no true right or wrong, it forces people to look for the reason for the difference. Upon finding the reasoning, the difference does not seem so extreme. I found this to be true in Things Fall Apart. At the beginning of the novel, I found Okonkwo to be very harsh to his father. I also saw him as cruel and selfish. However, I upon futher review of the novel, I found my accusations to be false. Okonkwo was just living by the standards of his society, and it was wrong to judge him by mine. By my standards, Okonkwo was a detestable figure. But when I thought about his culture, I understood him. Understood his actions and thoughts.
While I do not agree with Rachels rejection, I believe that he makes some arguments of merit. Cultural Relativism has the potential to ignore horrific facts. Anti-sematic nations should not go on killing sprees, and slavery wars should not be waged. This argument ties into another of Rachels, that there are some universal ethics that do exist, because without them a society would not survive. That being said, I believe it is only logical to believe that these univeral moral would hold true and stop any horrific acts form continuing. I still do not believe that this goes against Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism states only that there is not a universal code, that does not mean to say that some morals are not universal. I also highly doubt that Cultural Relativism is not about accepting, but about understanding.
Cultural Relativism states that moral codes can only be judged by the society and time they are found. I do not agree with the Middle East's practice of beating women. However, when considering a society based on honor and men having the higher position, understand where the beatings can be found acceptable. To my moral standards, these acts are horrific and I believe that something needs to be done about it. However, I do not believe that this is the goal of Cultural Relativism. I do not believe that the theory is attempting to promote beatings, or on our side, the uncovering of women. I believe that Cultural Relativism is attempting to create an understanding between cultures, one where we are not to quick to judge. We do not have to agree with the other cultures actions, nor do we have to sit around and do nothing, we just need to understand the reason behind it. By understanding the reasons better, we understand the culture better and are able to make better relations with that culture.

"The Hero and the Theme"

"The poem's theme and the heor's goal are one." George Clark made this statement in his analysis of Beowulf in regards to its hero and theme. Many scholars have studied this poem over the years. Debates rage about who the author(s) was, the purpose of the poem, and how the hero and theme are related. After analyzing all views on the argument, Clark came to the decisiosn that theme and hero were one in the same. After reading his analysis, I find that I am in full agreement. It could be stated that Beowulf's goal was to fulfill the theme of the poem. The poem's theme is to lead a life worth remembering. This life is one of success and honor. Every man should strive to live up to his father and to avoid shaming his children. In my eyes, this is exactly what Beowulf did. He wished to fill the gigantic shoes of his father and uncle. At the same time, he wanted those around him to remeber him kindly. Honor and chilvary were the ultimate goals for Beowulf and the theme.

George Clark quotes Kathryn Hume as stating "'We know too little of his everyday humanity, his normal human feelings, to be able to see him as an extension of ourselves.'" I could not disagree more with this statement. I view Beowulf as the perfect hero. Humes is stating that there is no personal connection between Beowulf and the reader, to me this is what makes him perfect. Choose your favorite hero and I guarantee you, it would be a hard thing to find someone in agreement. Humes is right, there is nothing specific to connect hero and reader. At the same time, there is nothing to separtate the hero from the reader. What one reader connects with, another may not. Any past struggles or emotions are alluded to so broadly in the text that anyone can connect with it. Beowulf is expressed as a typical man. The only exaggerated aspect is his strength. Beyond that, Beowulf could represent any man anywhere. The fact that Beowulf lives up to the poem's theme, indicates that all men are capable of such a feat. Beowulf's heroic qualities are obtainable by the common man. That is what makes him such a wonderful hero for me, he is not Superman. He is a regular man living life in the best way imaginable.
Beowulf 's theme is the same as its excellent hero. Beowulf does not have an obscure theme that is hard to find. Nor does it have a hero that exceeds normal expectations. Beowulf teaches its readers to lead a life full of honor and chilvary. More importantly, it teaches that any man is capable of just such a feat. Most people today think of Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man when they think of fantasy heroes; Beowulf certainly does not make the list. But he should. Today's society often looks for an escape when they are reading. However, the escape is short lived. Reading of the grand hero may give the reader enough courage to face the problem he ran from, but it will do little to carry him through life. Beowulf is not a momentary escape. Beowulf provides its readers with the tools to handle any battle. It gives the reader the sense that no challenge is to great for the ordinary man. Beowulf gives power to the ordinary man. It makes him the hero.

Changing History

What I learn in school is always correct. Well, as a little elementary school student I may have believed this. But as I got older, I reliazed that this may not always be the case. Teachers make mistakes and subjects are constantly evolving. For instance, one lesson stressed in the sciences is that the "facts" we study are actually theories. Tomorrow, everything we have learned could be turned upsidedown. However, no one has ever told me that history is recorded incorrectly, nor in fact that there is no way to accurately record history.
Beowulf and Grendel were excellent examples of how there are two sides to every issue. In Beowulf, Grendel is depicted as a heinous monster. A monster that goes on killing sprees with no provocation. He is an unnatural evil thing whose death deserves to be gruesome and painful. In Grendel, Grendel is a young creature that attempts to fit into man's society. However, man is a pitiful group of braggers and so-called "heroes". Despite the fact that in Grendel mankind is something to be ashamed of, Grendel still wishes to be accepted by these great beings. When he enters a hall extending the hand of friendship, he is attacked and driven out of the hall. Is it no wonder that he retaliate? In mankind's society, such a treatment to another being would have caused a greater retaliation. What is more, it would have been expected and approved of. Instead, Grendel is painted as an evildoer. Both authors told the same story, from two different points of view. However, the stories could not have been more different.
History is very much like Beowulf and Grendel. In school, Americans learn about the great feats of George Washington and our other founding fathers. Of how our ancestors shook off the chains of England's tyrannical rule and established the wonderful country of America. English students learn how the ungrateful colonists rebelled against the great and wondrous rule of England. This is not the only example, either. Years from now, my children will learn how terrorists attacked our great nation on September 11. In foreign countries, some children will learn how freedom fighters took a daring attempt against the oppressive United States. The facts and numbers may be the same, but the change of a few adjectives, and history is completely rewritten.
So few people consciously realize the unstability of history. What people learned of history in school, people accept as cold, hard facts. One reason for this is that unlike in the sciences where we are told that not everything is 100 percent true, it is implied that everything learned in history is 100 percent true. So few in America question whether the what the colonists did was reasonable or not. However, subconsciously, people are aware of how history is not set in stone. People often wonder aloud how such and such an event will be recorded. This implies that there can be more than one view to an event. Unfortunately, not many bridge the gap between the subconscience and conscience.
Nothing can truly be done to fix history. When it comes to mankind's history, it is impossible to find an impartial account. Even if the historian has no ties to the event, the historian may have his own view, or his sources may be biased. In my examples, it can be seen how just one or two words, or even the rearranging of a sentence can change history. History is so easily influenced by those who are writing it. I believe that the only measure that can be taken against this dilemma is allowing students to know, from an early age, that history is subject to influence. We cannot change how we record history, but we can change how we view it. After this class and reading Beowulf and Grendel, I know I will veiw history differently. I will always wonder how others view the events of today's society. In this manner, I think we may be able to keep an accurate record of history. When we compare our views with others' a common ground may be reached, and that will be where true history lies.

Are We Individualists?

Americans take pried in the fact that we are a country of individuals. This is the one nation in the world where someone can be completely themselves and not face pursection. We are a country of individuals, or are we? Many obstacles the characters from The Fountainhead, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, and The Power of One had to overcome to be individuals, still face Americans today.
The characters Stephen Deadulus and Peekay shared many obstacles that we, as Americans, still face. Stephen Deadulus and Peekay were pulled in all different directions by those who cared for them. Attempting to please everyone they cared for, these two characters loss a sense of who they were. Only by drastically separating themselves physically from these influences could they find themselves. For many Americans, this act could be seen as moving away to college. Unfortunately for us, this does not give the separation we need that Stephen and Peekay found. With today's fast modes of communication and transportation, we never truly leave those who influence us. We never get the chance to stop trying to please those around us and start living for ourselves.
Living for yourself and being an individual was a large part of Ayn Rand's philosophy in The Fountainhead; this philosophy has to overcome many obstacles both in the text and in today's world. The one thing Howard Roark could never do was compromise on his architecture. Architecture was the median through which he experienced life. A compromise in architecture would have been a compromise of Howard and his life. From a young age, Americans today are taught to share, compromise and collaborate. Rand never implied that these are bad, when used in the correct way. Compromising on something we feel passionate about, is compromising ourselves. For instance, I am a very passionate runner. Nothing feels worse than when my teammates decide to cut a workout and I agree. It truly feels like I am compromising myself. It is at these times that I wish I were more like Howard, Stephen, or Peekay. Past the influence of others and compromising, there is still one obstacle the individual must overcome.
In both the books and life, the hardest obstacle to overcome is the fact that the individual is not the norm. The individual scares the other characters in the books, and it scares Americans. The solution to this is to destroy the individual. This can be done in two ways. The first is by those who care for the individual, who try to have him assimilate into the collective. The second is by those who do not care for him, in which case they ostrascize him. Our culture accepts individuality within a range. This can be seen in the many trends of the today. If we were a true group of individuals, there would be more styles of clothes, more genres of books, more artists, etc. There would be no strong trend. Our idea of individuality is allowing multiple trends to be in style at once. However, this is only making collectivism in pockets. Everyone of us has a group or title we could belong under. None of these titles are simply our name, the individual us.