The Venetian Government's Order vs. An Artist's Mind

This is a late entry, but one I wished to post due to my involvement with the Theater Department’s Mainstage show Scenes from an Execution. The plot in the show is a perfect example of how we discussed the sides critical thinking and critical pedagogy. The Venetian government sets up to commission a painting of the Battle of Lepanto with the best and most famous artist of the time Anna Galactia. The will of the Doge and his council represent the embodiment of critical pedagogy, for they wish to have the painting rendered in a particular way to glorify the event. Galactia however, being the creative and critical artist she is, depicts the battle in a way she sees fit being that of a slaughter. 

The collision of the two sides soon ensues as the show progresses. The original motivation for Doge Urgentino is to “teach” Galactia what a good painting should be with undertones of sexual desire (as this is the theater of seduction). Urgentino can never flat out say what he wants though. That is how Howard Barker’s plays work, there is always a secret that is driving the action of a particular scene, the secret of the Doge being that he wants the painting to have a positive emphasis on the strengths and dignity of the Venetian people. Galactia disregards the wishes of the Doge and continues to paint the battle as a horrible depiction of death. Galactica is thereby taking the matter into her own hands, by trusting her own decisions on what is the truth, and putting her life and reputation on the line for her message. 

Eventually the Inquisition, led by Cardinal Ostensible, arranges a case against her and she is imprisoned. By the end of the show she is released and the painting is a success instead of a blasphemous work. The Doge has had a complete reversal in terms of his aesthetic ignorance, although the Cardinal is unable to reach such a perspective due to, “the credit of his Jesuit professors.” It shows the stubbornness that results from sometimes sticking with a particular order or way of thinking. He is not able to, like the Doge, to approach the idea of a, “great nation . . that shows its victories not as parades of virility, but as terrible cost.” 

Is there still gender bias in America? (Q&A9)

Is there still a biased society in America today on women or are we making progress? 

Today in most parts of where I have lived it seems that people treat gender with a sense of neutrality, or at least they seem to talk about it in that way (but who knows what they could really believe). This view could just be enforced by the fear of the law as today stresses that sexual harassment in the work place and in general is wrong. Still there is a broad scale of standpoints in America and throughout the world that have not reached a level of moral maturity or critical thinking that sees through the idea of supremacy among gender. Some radical feminists for example tend to do the opposite of what most feminists are advocating, the radical one’s express that females have a superiority over men. As much as I prefer the company of women over men, I still think that both genders should have equal standing on all grounds. The exception being anatomical implications of gender. For we would not prescribe “the pill” for a male as that would be doing little good for the man it was prescribed for.

As much as I wanted to believe we were making the progress in moral activity, the recent presidential election arises some concerns. It seems illogical that birth control issues should be of any consideration within the law as most people who are Pro-life have a religious background. This is not to say someone should have abortions left and right, but if someone was raped for instance or the pregnancy was by failed birth control that the impregnated woman should have a say about the baby. The opposition, about a 1/3 or so of the country, seems to have forgotten the principles of America and its division of church and state. It is religious affiliations in most cases that often prevents critical thinking and allows an individual to only have a narrow scope in terms of ideas such as freedom and equality (this is not to say all Christians are woman haters or anything like that, but for some of these religious affiliated people male supremacy is something they believe to be almost a divine right). 

Everyone is a person who will be different from everyone else. This is the main idea of Standpoint theory. Although we can not discover who is more right by this method, we can have an awareness of how a particular person feels on a matter based on who they are and their experiences. To demonstrate how gender affiliations are obsolete, especially today, I will use an example from my own life. My girlfriend likes football. I do not. Men are typically characterized to be interested in football, but in this case it is a female who likes the sport instead of the male. This stereotypical opinion on how men like this sport can show a male and female having a gender reversal on a particular topic. Although this is sort of a silly example, it could be demonstrated to show how a form of progress in gender identity and equality can be forming in America and hopefully the stretch of the planet. 

Ancient Greek Dualities and Gender Roles? (Q&A9)

Could the idea of opposites in Greek philosophy have caused male-dominated society? 

The idea of opposites was a fundamental way of scrutinizing the way reality was within the minds of the ancient Greeks. Empedocles for instance spoke of the two forces, love and strife, one that brings things together and one that tears things apart. This view influenced other Greek philosophers, and the idea of a duality within our reality became quite apparent and believed. This perspective seems very reflective of their society and the way they viewed women and other people who were not acclaimed citizens. 

This is a list of commonly considered opposites in ancient Greek philosophy:

 Hot – Cold 

Dry – Wet 

Limit – Unlimited 

Odd – Even 

Right – Left 

One – Plurality 

Male – Female 

Resting – Moving 

Straight – Crooked 

Light – Darkness 

Good – Bad 

Square – Oblong

The two columns were often associated together such as the left side pertaining to light and goodness. However, we can see that females would be clumped together with the more negative associations such as badness, coldness, and darkness. This probably started to put in place within their society an assumption that men were the stronger half, for they in the Greek perspective, were more fond of logical thinking as opposed to emotional thinking. In Plato’s Republic he talks of his society saying, “we pride ourselves if we are able to keep quiet and master our grief, for we think that this is the manly thing to do and that the behavior we praised before [emotional suffering] is womanish.” This clearly distinguishes the idea of logical and emotional, which seems to be associated with men and women. This is an interesting point to think of as much of the ancient Western philosophy would have tolls on the way Christianity was perceived and how it would effect the course of society and gender roles for centuries to come.