Group: I'm not sure how to start it, suggestions? And of course any other suggestions to make it better!
______________________________________________________________________
Power, and the struggle of holding or withholding power is an ontological question. The people of modern civil societies are often concerned with who, what, or where they should be. Power then becomes an ontological question because it is at the heart of what one can do and accomplish. Personal power is the ability to limit one’s desires to become an effective member of a specific society. Conversely, social power relies on the ability to control, manipulate, and alter the desires of others. While some desires are natural, such as the desire to eat, sleep, and survive, other desires are constructs of that specific society. Morality is one of the societal constructs as there is no transcendental morality. True and effective social power is the ability to control and manipulate the societal desires of others. While physical power relies on the manipulation of the natural desires, by way of intimidation, true and lasting forms of social power is within the distortion of the societal desires. Operating with the assumption that societies and governments function due to some loose form of social contract, the people in the society are actively agreeing to the rules and governance of that society. From this acceptance, a duty arises for the ruling power to give the people something in return. As such, it is the duty of the government, as the predominant form of power, to teach the people how to limit their desires to comply with the relative morality of the society so the people can function in the society.
Julia,
ReplyDeleteI get your basic point here. You say that power is ontological, but what does that mean. You need to clarify this or ditch it. What exactly to you mean by "the distortion of societal desire?" Why distortion? By the thesis you seem to lose the dialectical play between society and the individual. Do you want to? This is what can head you in a fascist direction by delivering all power to the state.
Julia—I think that this is a really good paragraph! I especially like your final idea—that it’s the job of the government to teach its people so that they can function in a society. I’m giving you lots of suggestions and not really sugarcoating them because I see that this is already good and I know you can take my suggestions well.
ReplyDeleteSo, first, I don’t think you really need the first 3 sentences. They don’t really say anything other than that it’s important to think about power, which is pretty obvious, I think, considering it’s a paper/class on power.
I’m a little confused from the get-go about where you’re going with it. On a first read, most of your first paragraph seemed like a lot of awesome ideas and definitions, but I couldn’t really understand why you were putting them all together until I got to your thesis. Then, when I went back and re-read, I could understand better. Because of that, I think a good way to start (or at least something that should go before your definitions, if it’s not your very beginning) would be to let us know where you’re going. It doesn’t have to be your exact thesis—I know you don’t want to be repetitive, but if, as your thesis suggests, your paper is going to be about the duty that the government has to help its people follow the morality of society so that they can function in that society, you should say that before the last line, or at least mention the government in some way. Does that make sense?
Also, I think that the sentence, “Conversely, social power relies on the ability to control, manipulate, and alter the desires of others.” is a little unnecessary—you go on to explain it and say basically the same thing a bit later, and I think that it would be smoother if you just said, “Personal power is the ability to limit one’s desires to become an effective member of a specific society. While some desires are natural…”
You write “Morality is one of the societal constructs as there is no transcendental morality.” I like that you’re telling us where you’re coming from, letting us know that this is part of your argument. But this is a HUGE statement. I know it’s the intro and you don’t have much space, but I’m not sure you can just posit that “fact” without giving us a little bit more. If you’re working off that assumption, proving it is going to have to be a big part of your paper, so it should be a big part of your intro. If it’s not going to be a big part of your paper, don’t put it here. But don’t just say it in one sentence. Does that make sense?
I am also a little bit confused by the statement, “true and lasting forms of social power is within the distortion of the societal desires.” It would be great if you could expand/explain this. I feel like it’s really important for your thesis. In general, I think I want to know a bit more about your thesis in the paragraph…instead of just setting it up for the whole paragraph, give me a bit more info about what it means.
Generally, though, this is a great paragraph. Good writing and great ideas. Let me know if you have any questions.
Good luck!
-Kathryn
Julia!!
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you about what social power is. I'd love to know more about why you believe that personal power is stifling one's desires... maybe I'll come to your panel and find out : )
Are you gonna go down the Foucault route when you say that "physical power relies on the manipulation of the natural desires, by way of intimidation"? I think he would probably have some interesting things to say on the subject...
I really like your paragraph. Your thesis does a great job of tying together all of the points that you make in your paragraph. However, like Kathryn, I was a little bit lost until I GOT to your thesis. Re-reading it made much more sense. It would help me if some of the first few sentences were re-arranged, so that you talked about social power in one part, personal power in another part, and then the morality that is taught in society in a third part, instead of mixed up in a big chunk.
Loved the distinction when you defined "true and EFFECTIVE" social power, instead of just "true" social power. That made it harder to argue against : )
I don't know WHY a duty arises for the government to give the people something in return for entering into the "loose social contract." That's something you may need to expand on a little.
I agree with Jamie--the ontological part needs to be more developed or discarded. It doesn't seem to fit with your argument.
All in all though, this is a really cool and unique argument. I'm excited to see where it's going to take you!!
Em