Thesis Questions/Statements

Questions
1. What are the effects on children whose parents push them in sports?
2. Should college athletes be paid?
3. How has affirmative action increased racial animosity in our country?
4. Does working more actually reduce productivity?

Statements
1. Due to the extremely competitive nature in sports, overbearing parents that place extreme pressure on their kids to succeed will ultimately lead to broken relationship, between the kid and the sport, as well as the kid and the parent(s).

2. Due to the benefits college athletes already receive, it would be immature to think that they need a paycheck after every game.

3. Affirmative action has led to increased racial animosity in our country because the focus of college acceptance is no longer solely based on aptitude, but filling a quota. This not only does not make up for past racial discrimination, but brings forth new racial controversies, only furthering the problem.

4. As Americans, we have pushed the world to new levels of work, yet we are still well behind many European countries in terms of economic and scientific success. Conclusively, I believe working more not only reduces productivity in the workplace, but outside the workplace as well.

Pre-Write For Synthesis

         Power is the central argument in Kanye West's "Power", John Berger's "Ways of Seeing", and Michael Foucault's "Panopticism". In the music video power, West assumes the position of a Monarch or Pharaoh. His lyrics combined with the powerful images portray that he is at the ultimate position of power. He remains free from distractions, represented by tens of women surrounding him, in order to succeed. I still ponder as to why to men at the end of the video appear to try and kill Kanye, and whether they are successful. This may represent the mass majority's attempt to overtake Kanye as ruler, of the music world or in a more general sense. John Berger writes about the power of images, especially in artwork. He concludes that the invention of the camera has completely diminished the power and value of images because it mystifies the true meaning of what the artist was trying to portray by replication. He claims that the power now rests in the value of the piece, or its rarity. Finally, in "Panopticism", Michael Foucault describes the geometrically superior panopticon. It is a structure at the center of a room surrounded with windows in order to see any inmate at any particular time. The panopticon epitomizes power by controlling a maximum number of people with a minimum amount of people operating the panopticon. It was first meant to watch over criminals, but has now made its way into academics, factories, and hospitals in order to improve performance. Conclusively, I believe the underlying factor connecting all three stories of power is vision. The ability to see is something we all take for granted, but our eyes have shown us that Kanye West sits on a throne, that we can now google the  "Mona Lisa" and pull of thousands of printed replicas, and that we can control people in a panopticon by simply sitting there with our eyes open. Clearly, we can synthesize that seeing is not only believing, but powerful as well.

Summary of Foucault's "Panopticism"

        Michel Foucault gives his opinion on power and discipline in "Panopticism". He begins by explaining what measures were taken to control the plague, such as quarantine and forced separation. These forms of discipline used during the plagues have been the basis for much of the discipline that was evident during that time. From there, Foucault describes Jeremy Bentham's "Panopticon", a tower in the center of a room which has vision to every cell, generalized for prisoners. The ultimate discipline mechanism, the panopticon is simply a device to make discipline more economic and proficient.  It's selling point is that all the prisoners can be seen without ever seeing. Furthermore, the panopticon epitomizes power and control because it minimizes the persons needed to operate and maximizes the persons that it watches over. Since a prisoner never knows when he/she is being watched, anybody has the power to operate the panopticon. Because of this, there can be no tyranny where the power is held (and abused) by one person. The panopticon does not limit itself to prison cells, however. It can maximize potential in a hospital, school, factory or wherever else discipline plays a role. In a sense, if society had a panopticon, the world would be much more productive at the hands of power and discipline. Nearly opposite the tactics used to control the plague, the style incorporated by the panopticon uses the power of seeing to gain control. The panopticon is power by geometry, and Foucault goes into great detail about how the panopticon represents discipline and power in society as a whole.

My Response to Madsen's Article

           While reading Kyle Madsen's response to my paper "Why Bother?", I came across some arguments against my article that I found to be rather ignorant. Madsen claimed that my argument "loses impact by not discussing more realistic alternatives such as pursuing smart consumerism and better environmental education for children."   While Madsen is entitled to his own opinion, I feel as though I did convey an ample amount of solutions that don't require the labor of growing your own food. In paragraph 18 I state "Driving an S.U.V. or eating a 24-ounce steak or even illuminating your McMansion like an airport runway at night might come to be regarded as outrageous to human conscious." Here, I propose that doing any of these anti-green activities may one day be frowned upon by society. Indirectly, I am advocating the use of fuel-efficient vehicles, a diet consuming of something other than meat, and a bit of thought when it comes to lighting your home. Obviously, not everybody can plant a garden, but I see it as "realistic" to consider fuel economy when purchasing your next car, eating a bit more fruits and vegetables, and turning your lights off when nobody is using them.
         
          Aside from not mentioning "realistic alternatives", Madsen claims that my "angle of vision may be too intense for some readers." Also, he states that I assume my "New York Times readers already share (my) agreement with most of the serious views of climate change held by many scientists and environmentalists." Although I have a specific point I would like to get across, I do not believe my angle of vision is so acute that it only includes such professionals. I do assume the readers of the New York Times are intelligent enough to understand the references I make and facts I give, but I am not saying they have to agree with my viewpoints regarding the causes of global warming. My goal was not to persuade, but to inform, and by me using the planting of a garden as my primary example throughout the text, I was simply trying to say that one person, despite the task, can make a difference.