My project is an investigation into responsibility. In modern times more and more people are getting reduced prison sentences due to diminished responsibility. This inspired me to look into the autonomy of the Subject. This investigation charts its way through the history of the subject, starting with the wholly autonomous subject as proposed in John Rawls theory of justice, justice as fairness. This theory relies on respect for others, freedom and equality and most importantly an autonomous self. The first person to challenge this idea concerning the self was Sigmund Freud when he proposes that the mind was in fact split in three parts, the id, ego and the super‐ego, which all have different effects on our actions and choices. With this theory in mind I look into scientific evidence to back up Freud and show how illness such as schizophrenia and narcissistic personality disorder affect the mind and the Subject. Finally I look at the theories of Keith Ansell Pearson in his book Viroid Life in which he questions the autonomy of the Subject altogether. He produces a theory of the cyborg and the hybrid self and proposes that the rapid rise in technology has created a more deterministic reality and halted the autonomy of man.
Category: Abstracts
Territory: My project this year is a follow on from my project last year and so my territory has remained the same. My territory is society itself, but particularly the problems of society and the two possible futures for society those being either; the civilised state of nature where everyone is out to get everyone in order to increase their standing in society, this is seen in things such as the culture of legal action. The other scenario is a totalitarian state where the government take absolute control to prevent a collapse in the civilised state of nature or full anarchy, but it can also be seen happening through such things as political correctness and the nanny culture. Aim: My aim for my project is to find a way to prevent these two scenarios from occurring but also to find a way to tackle some of today’s societies problems. I plan to do this by looking for the root of the problem and then tackle the problem from the root up. I believe that the root is society’s obsession with liberty and equality with liberty being the more problematic of the two. To tackle the problem I shall be using theories from Social Contract thinkers such as Hobbes and Hegel to thinkers such as Levinas and their view on meaning. Overall I want to try and make a system where there is liberty and equality, but it is not an obsession rather a balance between liberty, equality, order and meaning to ensure a society where we can grow as moral human beings with the most pleasant life possible without having to resort to extremes to do so.
Overall aim- to prove that humans do have a distinct nature which sets us apart as individuals and that we are more than living organisms that respond to social needs. • To prove this I am using my experience of America – to study how I adapted to a new culture to see whether I totally adapted or whether there is part of me that remained the same. • We cannot deny our want and need to adapt to environments and cultures but humans still have an innate nature that defines us as individuals and remains the same all our life. • Our human nature is responsible for HOW we respond to cultures and our upbringing. We are not born a blank slate. PHILOSOPHY. • I liken my ideas to Descartes and his idea of dualism where the mind and body are distinct from each other. • Mencius believed that there are 4 positions of human nature that we are born with but develop throughout our life, o 1. Mind of commiseration o 2. Mind of shame o 3. Mind of respect o 4. Mind of right/wrong • Lao Tzu believed that we should strive to be an ‘uncarved block.’ So we should go back to the basis of our human nature and we should not be affected by anything external to ourselves. • I am using these two philosophers to suggest unlike them I do not believe we are wholly independent from society and I think that Lao Tzu’s ‘uncarved block’ is unrealistic. We could never deny the influences that our society/upbringing has on us. • But like them I believe we have an innate human nature which is responsible for how we respond to our surroundings and is individual to each person.
Main Aim: In this project I aim to explore the changes in Russian politics and ideology from the Tsarist autocracy through to the information revolution that ultimately brought to an end the oppressive Communist regime affected by Josef Stalin. With respect to these changes I will look at how important the concept of the autonomy of the individual is in maintaining an ethical and moral way of life and how the autonomy and subsequent freedom of the individual was affected throughout these socio‐political changes. The use of Solzhenitsyn’s ‘Cancer Ward’ is particularly useful firstly because of the personal nature of his experience; he was arrested and put into forced labour for eight years before being confined to internal exile following criticism of Stalin in a personal letter. With regards to this, the semi‐autobiographical nature of the book allows a fictional insight into the workings of the Soviet State post Stalin with the authenticity of personal experience. Secondly, it provides a detailed insight into how the government treated individuals but also of how individuals treated each other while under the morally dubious Stalinist state. Philosophy: Kant – A major contributor to contemporary ethical thought the works of Kant had a significant effect on how the individual was thought of to be able to work out and make their own ethical decisions. It will be important to see how the autonomy of the individual changes under the communist and totalitarian Stalinist state. Marx/Hegel – the concepts of alienation and the abolition of private property from these two thinkers created the original structure around which Lenin’s communism would be built. Their thoughts on both subjects will require explanation. Sartre – His post war work meant his name became synonymous with existentialism, the absolute freedom with which we make our decisions contrasted harshly with the reality of Russia during the mid 20th Century where people often declined to make the correct ethical choice, or were altered to act in a way unbefitting a moral human being. His later writings reflect a more measured approach to the effects of one’s situation and I will explore his subsequent change in direction. Personal Considerations: This project has allowed me to explore an area of personal interest (Russian literature) combined with the aspects of philosophy I find most interesting. I have also been able to understand the link between society and philosophy more thoroughly and regarding this the importance that the individual plays in how he treats his fellow man, no matter how powerful or oppressive the government is.
Is there a transcendental taxonomy of sexuality? Are we being exposed to a sexual ideology? Will heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality satisfy the variety of sexual orientations which exist? These are the questions which I wish to answer in my study of erotic attraction and sexuality. Throughout time differing sexualities and sexual traditions have surfaced. I want to discover why these paradigms exist, and whether sexuality is a wholly social construct. Included in the differing epochs of sexuality are the Mesopotamian obsession with fertility; the Ancient Indian tradition of linking sexuality with spiritual fulfilment; the Greco-Roman belief in sexual status and the activity and passivity of agents; the great repression of the Middle Ages, leading on to a great enlightenment erotic liberation; and finally, the problems of sexually transmitted infections, specifically HIV and AIDS. The philosophical concepts which I will be using are the Neo-Marxist concept of reification, as explained by Adorno, and the Foucauldian notion of disciplinary power. When reading both Adorno and Foucault, it becomes apparent that both are distrustful of apparent truths, particularly those which have descended from capitalist society. Both see the progress of science as something which presumes particular values, and which can be used as a form of knowledge domination. Is sexuality included in this discourse, or is sexuality a metaphysical truth?
In this project I hope to discuss the problem of evil – namely how God can exist as evil does. By examining the Holocaust in regards to this I hope to be able to shed some new light on this infamous example of evil and suffering beyond comprehension. Did the German people knowingly allow the Holocaust to happen and if so what were the reasons behind this? By reading Rudolf Hoess’ autobiography I hope to be able to discover whether following orders removes all moral responsibility. Ultimately, could it happen again?
My territory is addiction; I chose addiction as it is a contemporary issue of concern today! I have examined most areas of addiction, such as; Drug/ alcohol abuse, gambling, sex and eating disorders. Essentially it is not about what addiction one has; rather why one is addicted in the first place. Thus, I have explored contemporary answers. The two concepts of Philosophy I have chosen are that of Mill and Bataille.
Bataille is related to my topic of addiction because he blames Society!!! Due to the Rise of Capitalism All time is spent on useful means leaving no time for useless expenditure…addiction is a way of escaping this monotonous regimented lifestyle!!!
The methodology: The method I have used throughout my project is the hermeneutic interpretive, as I attained all my information from books and the internet.
Mill is associated with my territory because his philosophy is based on Hedonism: Addiction is based on pleasure and addicts do it to release pain. This is also following Mill’s principle of Utilitarianism. Also, I have explored Mill’s work on education; his basic doctrine related to addiction would be that a good education from a young age would prevent behaviours like addiction occurring. He distinguishes higher and lower pleasures, higher pleasures being things such as; theatre and literature. Thus an alternative for addiction, for Mill, could be through art.
My Stage three project is a Foucauldian investigation into tattooing in England in the present day. I have based my research around Foucault’s theories of power, history and governmentality.
I have also investigated psychological and social theories that relate to the Foucauldian ideas of power and governmentality.
From working through my investigation, I decided that I should make history the greatest aspect of my analysis, and that allowed me an insight into collective notions in what I termed the “general society” and this has made up the main body of my work.
I have also investigated how the view of the tattooed community has changed, as well as investigating where negative opinions held by the societies at each point in history originated from.
I have discovered through my investigation that negative attitudes towards tattooing stem from the orthodox Judeo-Christian belief that the Body is the property of God, and that to scar or tattoo it is a sin against God. Tattooed Jews are still not allowed the same burial rites as non‐tattooed Jews.
This project represents a new understanding of tattooing as a genealogical entity, as much has been written about the social, psychological and anthropological impact of allowing tattooing in civilised society.
Whether or not the realm of freedom apparent in the plurality of styles used by contemporary artists is actually a way of concealing its true function, as a slave to business? In contemporary art’s exploration of the human psyche, it appears to hold out no consolation; conventional styles are broken and indiscretions of morals all define the basic contemporary art world orthodoxy. However although contemporary art has reinvented itself this also means that art’s existence now comes in relation to world politics, commerce, consumerism and the worlds of business and finance. In this project I will discuss how art has changed and been shaped by the demands that these external pressure points have put upon it, and what that means for the way we ‘read’ art and treat artists in contemporary culture. I will centre my argument on how the mass consumer culture of our society has lead to the commodification of art. I will focus on the artists Tracy Emin and Damien Hirst, and how both artists have embraced commercial success and celebrity status, buying into the values that art originally transcends, suggesting that they themselves have become a brand name out of which their art is made. The key philosopher that I will be using is Karl Marx and his theory of capitalism. He believed that the continual modernization in industry means that old structures, traditions and attachments begin to dissolve, so that in his famous phrase “all that is solid melts into air.” This can be applied to art’s status which is conventionally and ideally aligned with truth, beauty and ethics but with capitalisms involvement there is a shift from ethics to aesthetics. Contemporary art has become about creating pieces that are morally ambiguous, that promote corporations and entertain the mass culture. I will also be using Guy Debord and his Society of the Spectacle to elaborate on Marx’s theory and explain how he felt art had become commodified and the consequences of this, such as alienation and the loss of art’s function.
Territory: I chose to consider the BBC and the recent scandals in which it had been involved, focusing particularly on the Ross and Brand voicemail scandal and rigged phone-ins involving Blue Peter and Comic Relief. Concepts: My territory led me to consider morality and identity for the individual within modern society, focusing on the relationship between these concepts and institutions such as the BBC. Aims: Following the BBC scandal involving Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand and the public outrage this caused I decided to evaluate the role of the BBC today. My objective was therefore to determine the ways in which the BBC had changed over the years in order to debate whether it was still morally and culturally important today. In order to evaluate these changes I chose to look at Beck and his notion of Individualization to understand our changing society and the problems faced by the BBC today. To further consider the effects of cultural institutions such as the BBC for the individual I chose to look at Adorno’s “The Culture Industry” and Taylor’s “Sources of the Self”, which both highlighted the significance of cultural institutions within the formation of morality and identity. This led me to argue that the BBC still has an important role to play within society today both morally and culturally. However it must attempt to balance its traditional values with the developing attitudes of our society if it is to retain this significance.
Who can possibly be responsible for the two extreme eating disorders? The state, family, media and culture all have their parts to play. How do we know what is best for us?… If the state, family and individual all disagree? Parentalism – should an individual with an eating disorder be considered not fully rational and is this justification for some of that person’s right to freedom to be taken away, on the grounds that they would be ‘better off’. Hegel asserts that the individual’s highest freedom consists in membership in the state. BUT: Does society protect us?
This project investigates the motivations behind different terrorist attacks. From what drives them to become involved in terrorism to the different positions that are open to them and finally the effectiveness of their role and the influence of society’s perception. I decided to title my project “The War on Terrorism”. By my title I do not mean the campaign that was initiated by America and joined by other countries throughout the world to ‘curb the spread of terrorism’. My project will discuss the reasons why this campaign will not work. This War on Terrorism was authorized by the United States Congress under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists and was passed on the 18th of September 2001 after the attacks on America on 9/11. The object I plan to focus on is a scene from the film ‘The Kingdom’. The reason for this is because it is a film about terrorism, which I think compliments the objective I am trying to prove. The reason why I chose this is film is because at the start of the film when the terrorist bomb goes off in the housing compound, Agent Fleury whispers in one of his associate’s ears in comfort something we as the audience cannot hear. Then in one of the latest scenes when the leader of the terrorist group is shot and is dying he whispers to a young girl in comfort something that again we as the audience can’t hear. Then in the final scene each person reveals what was said to them. It was, “Don’t worry, we’ll kill them all.” This for me is very significant because it showed that even though the American agent was claiming to be bringing justice to the terrorists he was actually just looking to kill them all for killing his comrades. Both sides had the same objective, they both wanted to kill. How will this ever stop terrorism? My parallel territory was the Cold War as I believe no other event in history has affected world politics as the same way the Cold War did in the mid 1940’s till the early 1990’s. Terrorism has taken its place in modern day politics. The concepts I identified throughout my project were power, identity and the loss of identity. I believe America’s waging of war on terror was just an assertion of power and way in which to reinsert them as the main hegemonic power throughout the world. A philosophers whose work I have used is Ted Honderich, especially his work terrorism for Humanity which raises many difficult questions that are unavoidable at this moment in time as the war on terror rages. Questions related to the morality of terrorism and the use of political violence. In this work Honderich’s arguments for and against terrorism are directed towards the goal of the Principle of humanity. The questions which are raised throughout run along the lines of when is terrorism right, if ever? And when is it wrong? And what are the reasons for it being wrong? The main reason I chose this philosopher to focus on is because throughout this work he implores us to open our minds and explore political philosophy but he reminds us that even though we are opening our minds to see the bigger picture it does not mean we have to lose our convictions. Other philosophers I chose to look at are Castell and his work on resistance and identity, Habermas’s philosophy at the time of terror and Baudrillard and his fatalist theory,
Territory: Fast food industry. Objective: The aim of my project is to focus on how the fast food industry is taking over society and how the advertising within the media influences our decisions. I will illustrate how the fast food industry began and how it has developed into the global industry that we know today. How this industry has dominated the way that we see food as well as changing society into a fast pace society of convenience. As well as how our food choices are so heavily influenced by these corporations, that we are slowly becoming a nation killing ourselves through unhealthy food. Aim: I will be looking at chefs such as Jamie Oliver and Gordon Ramsey to understand how they are trying to change society’s eating habits and trying to help us not become such an unhealthy nation. The Philosopher that I will be using to aid my thought process will be Marx. I will focus on Marxist ideas on commodities and capitalism, as well as his theory of ideology. Focusing not just on Marx, but also on influential Marxists such as Fredric Jameson and Georg Lukac.
In this project I am looking to investigate the effects of capitalism on the music industry and more specifically the dominance of major record labels over independent. • One of the major influences for this project is the rise of television programmes such as the X Factor and Pop Idol and their effect on the world of music. These programmes seem to concentrate more on how much money they make rather than what the producers say they aim to do, which is to find musical talent. • By looking primarily in Marx and Fukuyama, I want to develop the idea of capitalism and the division of labour through Weber and Durkheim. • Finally I hope to bring both Music and Philosophy together by looking at Keith Negus and Simon Frith who have both looked at the idea of capitalism in music in an attempt to conclude once and for all whether or not capitalism truly has had a negative effect on the quality and production of music.
Territory: The territory I have considered in this project in order to understand the changing nature of identity is that of advertising in contemporary society. I have explored the history of advertising, the psychology of advertising and some advertising techniques that are used by companies to persuade. Concepts: The key concepts I have engaged with in this project are: – Loss of agency -Fragile nature of identity -Identity given by society -Identity in flux. Key questions I have engaged with are: -How is our identity formed in modern society? -How has it changed over time? -What are the influential factors on identity? -How do advertising agencies target individuals? -What methods do they use?
Territory – Comedy. Object – Offensive Humour. Concepts – Ethics, Liberty, Utilitarianism. Thinkers – Mill, Freud, Bakhtin. The Two Ways In Which Humour Can Be Evaluated: The aesthetical question concerns when it is fitting to laugh at something, and the ethical question, when is it morally wrong to laugh at something. For example if you claim that you should not laugh at sexist jokes, then in the aesthetic sense that means sexist jokes lack the features that something must have in order to be funny. If someone is amused by these jokes, then in this sense there has been an error of judgement, it’s not that they have done anything morally wrong, rather these kind of jokes fail as comedy. The ethical question, on the other hand, identifies something as morally wrong to laugh at. Linked to this is Ronald De Sousa’s account of how humour works. He claims that in order to be amused by something we have to endorse the attitudes of it. To take the previous example, according to him, some of us will find sexist jokes funny whereas others will not, the difference is in whether you support those attitudes. Therefore it would become immoral to be amused by this type of joke since to find it humorous is to be sexist. Main Objective: I intend to make a study into the area of humour, focusing upon looking into ethics surrounding amusement and attempting to find out whether it could ever be morally perverse or wrong to make jokes, or laugh about particular things. Utilitarian Concept: I shall engage with a utilitarian perspective when it comes to discovering whether finding humour in something could ever be morally wrong. Take for example the Dutch cartoon of Mohammed. Clearly this had a lot of negative consequences and upset a lot of people. Quite obviously blasphemous humour can be offensive. However no utilitarian evaluation is complete without looking at all the consequences, and it could be argued that there was some positive outcomes. It got people talking about religious views, and reflection and discussion are beneficial to individuals and society as a whole. A society with more discourse and exchanging of ideas is a happier society than one without. In that sense jokes such as these could be argued to be for the greater good. Change and Contrast: The historical contrast between the role of parody in the Medieval carnival and the limits of parody in modernity. Medieval Carnival: Generalised ethical permission under which parody, that would have amounted to blasphemy on any other occasion, was acceptable, under a particular kind of social occasion. Modern day there are restrictions on parody and what is acceptable or viewed as offensive. Could not conceive permission to create a parody of a war memorial for example.
One of my main sources links Fight Club with an article by Omar Lizardo named ‘Fight Club, or the Cultural Contradictions of Late Capitalism’, which I found in the Journal for Cultural Research. I chose this because it places quite an original perspective in that it is a reaction to arguments that tend to emphasize Fight Clubs relevance for the study of contemporary representations of gender and masculinity. Lizardo argues ‘that Fight Club can be seen as an attempt to deal with the evacuation and exhaustion of the original form of value-rationality from the realm of production in service work. Basically it contemplates whether class-consciousness in the modern capitalist state has left man with a sense of lost virility, and whether or not Fight Club is a reaction to this. I have chosen to link this with Thomas Hobbes’ ‘Leviathan’ which talks of the state of nature and how man gave up his freedom and violent, barbaric ways to conform to civil society under social contract. Sigmund Freud served more as a psychoanalyst and sociologist than a philosopher in this project as I used his work ‘Civilization and its Discontents’ to analyse the possible reasons for the narrator’s breakdown. Many of Freud’s ideas already appear quite blatant and self explanatory in the film, however Freud covers much more material that is not evident at all. I chose to use the film ‘Zeitgeist’ by Peter Joseph as I felt this would be both very interesting material and also would place a very original comparative to Fight Club. I was in complete awe, shock and amazement when I first watched this extremely powerful and scary film and am very passionate about spreading the word about it. It will prove highly relevant to some of the material in Fight Club, and is something that I feel everyone should know about.
Territory: Escapism, our obsession, need for it. What I will use to do this: My mind, Psychology, Fromm, Sociology. We are the only species on this planet that routinely, and necessarily require some form of detachment from our existence. I want to explore this need of ours to escape from the perspective of the protagonist Craig Schwartz in the film ‘Being John Malkovich’. As well as using an individual’s perspective I hope to look at society as a whole, the way it is driven by a mainstream commercialist economy and how this affects our need to subvert our reality from time to time.
From the birth of modernity mans values have been forced into change with the diminishing role of religion in society and the subsequent rising of science and rationality. The object that seems to have become of most importance since the decline of religious beliefs is money. Is there a case then that money has become all that modern society values? Cases of modern day philanthropy, such as those pledges made by famous entrepreneurs Bill Gates and Richard Branson offer an alternative to this view. After the oppressive feudal system governed by the Church, the move onto a capitalist approach was thought of as bringing an otherwise unheard of amount of freedom to the common man. That the individual could now accumulate wealth and use this commodity to raise one’s social standing offered much hope for a liberal future. The modern day philanthropists seems the ideal modern man, whose success in accumulating wealth is then transferred into helping other important social ‘goods’. There is of course criticisms aimed at these capitalist ideals, in this project the works of Marx and Marcuse are of significant interest. Marx is perhaps the most famous opponent of capitalism and his work is used here to describe his idea of money ‘alienating’ man from his fellow man. Marcuse’s ‘1-Dimensional Man’ is a work very critical of those institutions in our advanced industrial society that keep the common man under control. In particular, the mass media and the use of advertising as tools used by modern society to plant ‘false needs’ into the consumer in order to support our ever-increasing rationality. The discussion thus follows whether in modern society there is more to the successful man than wealth. Surely the accumulation of wealth on its own is not something to be admired within a man, instead perhaps it should be that the sharing of wealth is that which we value.
Territory: Graffiti. Object: Graffiti Art. Graffiti as an art movement and global phenomenon, originates in the early 1970’s in New York City. The unique dynamics of the city gave rises to an artistic battleground of expression in a cultural climate of alienation and class divide. As the youth at the heart of American capitalism struggled to gain recognition, the graffiti subculture was born. Using unconventional mediums and the alternative canvas of the urban landscape, graffiti, enveloped the city, the nation and eventually the entire world. Philosophical Concept: Heidegger- The Origin of the work of art. Heidegger’s intent is always to bring us closer to the understanding of Being. Art in its origin, is art; the happening of truth of a people’s historical existence. Great artworks in the current tradition of aesthetics are ripped away from their essential truth when classed as objects to be judged and experienced in pleasure, losing their authenticity and ability to ‘set-up’ a world and ‘set-forth’ the earth. Graffiti’s philosophical relevance: The Truth of Being. Graffiti writing rose out of a particular ‘world’, a horizon of disclosure dominated by capitalist alienation. The struggle of the youths in New York City was a battle of resistance to authority and conformity that led to an artistic battle of expression. In graffiti’s expression, the ‘world’ of the American culture is opened up, the ‘earth’ rips through this ‘world’ in the form of undefined and sublime images of the New York subway trains, taking us out of our everyday world and reminding us of other existing realities. We forget the mysteriousness of truth in its dual essence of aletheia, and the works of the original underground graffiti movement disclose this struggle of world and earth; the truth of Being. It is this struggle that graffiti writers sought to sustain in their works, therefore, graffiti did not originate from art but rather from the truth of a people’s historical existence; the historical truth of being.