On Memory

Susan Sontag claimed that photography has an adverse effect rather than fulfilling its purpose: to help people better understand our world. She says that pictures "always hide more than [they] disclose." While I agree with her logic in this argument, I disagree with her claim. In my mind, the purpose of photography isn't to better understand the past, or whatever it was taken of. It is a form of art which is used to convey a certain feeling. Sontag dismisses this as "mental pollution," and to some degrees it can be, but she generalizes this to the entirety of photography. This is the flaw I find in her claim. Pollution is defined as the introduction of a harmful substance into an environment, and I do not find photos of my own memories as a harmful substance.

Photos that goad people into consumerism or make them insecure about themselves is harmful, but this does not define what a photo is. Above is a photo with me and life-long friends I made at a summer camp. This picture represents, to me, the entirety of that summer. I had an amazing experience with these people and the elated feeling that this picture conveys to me is exactly the opposite of how I interpret Sontag's argument.

When Sontag argues about what a photo can convey, however, I again agree with her. Photos can not be used to represent political knowledge due to the ability to skew the images. But, yet again, I disagree  that this is the main purpose of photography. The purpose is to be of sentimental value, which Sontag says is "knowledge at bargain prices." But is it really? If I can look at a photo, such as the one above, and remember the happiness of that memory, is that knowledge at a bargain price? But I guess the old cliché is true, one man's trash is another man's treasure. Sontag may find sentimental value as cheap, but I find photos as a treasure of memory.

Sarcasm in an Argument

After reading Jonathan Swifts, "A Modest Proposal," this week, I wondered why authors use sarcasm so often. His hyperbolized solution to poverty, after all, was mentally scarring to read, so there must be a purpose behind it. Looking back at most of the essays we've read in this class that try to achieve a reform of some kind, most have this satire or irony embedded within them as if it is the heart of what an argument is. I think that's exactly what sarcasm is, a centerpiece within an argument. If any social custom is bad enough to the point it can be jested about, then it obviously needs a change. Swift points out that the landlords have already eaten most of the parents, figuratively of course, so why not eat their infants too? This joke, while it is horrific, does make a very good point to the wealthy who have taken advantage of the poor. He even states that the "wise men" in society would come up with ideas as great as his own. This again ridicules the wealthy class in society who took advantage of others' poverty. Also, in Swifts' case, humor is something that is easily remembered. I know that I won't forget his piece for a very long time and neither will the wealthy people who read it.

Ignorance on the Internet

This week in class, we read a piece by Chet Raymo. It cautioned society that, while science can heal and solve and infinite amount of problems, it also holds the power of destruction. For example, Raymo presents a situation in which Cerium used in cancer treatments was misused by people ignorant to its effects. This situation ended with deaths of many people. I believe the real reason for this situation was that people did not know enough about what they were using. They followed the achievements of society blindly.

In our rapidly technologically advancing world, people often accept advancements that they do not understand. While, neither Raymo nor I believe that people should understand the entirety of technology, we only urge that people do not recklessly use it. One case in which this can happen easily is the internet. A person who understands the web can find information on any topic they wish. It is an infinite trove of information. However, the internet also contains misleading information that, if a person is uneducated about it, is equivalent to following technology blindly. The worst possible situation, though, is when someone believes they know more about something than they actually do. This is shown in Raymo's example of the discoverers of radium. They spent long hours looking at it, and it was eventually used commercially. In the end, one discoverer ended up with cataracts in both her eyes and it also harmed many people who came in contact with it. Again, this is also applicable to the internet. Those who believe they are educated about it will believe unreliable information that they find on the internet. While the ignorance on the internet may not be as harmful as in science, it can be accidentally misused to harm society's knowledge, just as science can harm lives.

Puzzle 1

Today, almost everyone in the world views women as equal to men. However, once upon a time, women were viewed as unable to do the same jobs as men, and as dependent on men. In the past, it was custom for women to be stay at home mothers with the primary job of taking care of their children. Florence Kelley used men’s perception of females role to argue for women’s rights. She links the treatment of children to the enfranchisement of women. Since men thought it was their job to take care of children, it is impossible to refute her argument that if mothers had the right to vote, children would be treated better; she creates this link through her masterful use of rhetoric. However, speeches like Kelley's were often viewed as ridiculous by men: as if the speaker was a pink elephant. Nevertheless, women like Kelley used a variety of arguments and eventually shaped women’s rights into what they are today. These arguments include that of Kelley, and also others such as the teachings of Jesus in that all humans are created equally. Cumulatively, women were able to convince society that they were strong and independent, and now they constantly contribute to society’s workforce to help it progress.

The Effect of Race on Public Perception

Brent Staples in, "Black Men and Public Space" exposes the fear that his skin color makes others feel in public. However, contrary to what the people intimidated by him believe, he is actually a very well educated man who means no harm. Staples provides many examples of how simply being black has altered the public space around him. Going for walks at night, he often faces the "standard unpleasantries with policemen" (Staples 3) due to his appearance. "Black Men and Public Space" allowed me to view society from a black man's point of view and, after reading this piece, I realized that a crucial factor in how people perceive each other is race.

Being a relatively skinny Indian teenager, I realize that I too have my own effects on public space. First of all, I intimidate pretty much no one (except maybe the swim team). I also sense discrimination on the basis of my skin color at many sporting events. After all, what is a skinny Indian kid versus a large black kid in a sprint? Well, similar to Staples, I rejected the stereotypes that come with my skin color. At an indoor track meet, I was unlucky enough to be the person filling the final spot of our sprint relay, and also receiving the baton in last place. Somehow I passed one team, and then another. I ended up out-finishing another team and the shook hands with the runner I had just beaten. There was a shocked look in his eye as he sized me up. Did this skinny Indian kid actually just beat him? Yes I did.

Only after reading Staples' piece did I realized how race is a major factor in determining public space. In Staples' case it instilled fear into others and in mine public space it was almost non-existent. I hope that in the future, society continues to demolish racial stereotypes so that this misjudgment no longer occurs. Because although winning as an underdog is fun, being perceived as one just because of your race is not.