|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Institutional Creed, Con, and Making Choices for Life
-- By KevinChang - 27 Feb 2009
Most people are not truly free in making decisions
People, or at least people live in democracy, would generally think that they enjoy freedom, use their free will, and make their own choices for their lives. What freedom, free will, and choices means here, of course, is that “within the boundaries,” such as morale, law, or any other social value or consensus. For instance, we believe, generally, that it is we ourselves who choose which college to attend, which courses to take, what should be our major, whom we marry, and what career we are dedicate to through all our lifetime. However, it is not uncommon that when we are making all these choices, some options or possibilities, although we are well aware of their existence, never come into our mind.
Most people tends to be confined by social creed or roles assigned to them
Are those options or possibilities not one of our choices? Or is it because our minds are limited by some invisible boundaries that we feel urged to ignore those possibilities? Maybe just like T. Arnold said in The Folklore of Capitalism, that “[b]ecause words and ceremonies are our only methods of communication, everywhere we find that the creed is regarded as the cornerstone of social institutions.” Since people are social animals, we need to be in communication with other people and thus are “forced,” though we might not be aware of it, to become one of the believers of the creed, and limit ourselves within the creed. In the choices we have made, from what to have for lunch to what career goals should be our life-long pursuit, common considerations such as values, resources, and expectations are what is controlling us in making choices. Moreover, since we need to be part of the society rather than being one of “them” instead of one of “us,” we somehow never challenge those boundaries or even try to figure out the nature and purpose of those boundaries. It is because, just like what Arnold said, “when someone attempts to describe how such an institution works, he is called a “realist” or a “cynic “because he makes believers uncomfortable. Thus to describe how the law . . . actually works is to appear attack these symbols.” We simply do not want to be a member of the “heresy” so we confine ourselves in the creed of social institutions when making choices for ourselves.
Then the question arises: Are we really making choices as free men? Arnold would say that people follow the institutional habits that every member in the social institutional should learn and abide by except the American Businessman. If we believe in Leff’s theories of cons, we might also think that people are just carefully playing their roles in the script of a gigantic con with the conmen being those with knowledge, wealth, and the power that comes with them. In the former theory, we are controlled by our human nature—the need to be recognized by and connected to other people. In the latter theory, we are manipulated collectively to satisfy the greed and needs of conmen who are the real writer as well as the directors of the script. In either way, we are made to feel like we are making choices and given the sense of participation so that the real players, or the conmen, could calm us and make us serve for them.
Most people are controlled because of their own weakness
However, is it their evil to manipulate people? Or is it people’s own fault that causes the manipulation? Alternatively, is it because most people actually need to be manipulated so that they would not get lost in their lives? That is to say, are the conmen under Leff in fact shepherds for people because people, though need to feel like they are making decision, are in fact not able to decide for themselves?
Two types of people that need to be controlled
Take making choices on one’s career for example. Some people do not know what their aspirations are or do not even want to know or to have an career aspiration. They live day after day without specific goal or plan and do their job only because they have to earn money to support their life. Once that need is satisfied, there is no further motive for them to think what is a meaningful career, or even a meaningful life for them. For these people, having someone set up a stage for them and give them a role to play might actually be helping them as well as benefitting social stability. Some other people, although do not have specific goals in mind either, are willing to make the most of themselves. They get into a profession, though somehow by accident, learn as much as they can, and finally become a outstanding professional. For this type of people, giving them the script to play is helping them maximize their ability and succeed in the profession that best suits them.
One type of people that is truly free
The last type of people, so few that they may count only one out of millions, are strong and wise enough to be the real thinking man for himself. They know exactly what they want to do with their lives. They possess high ideals, set goals that seems impossible to normal people, and take steps to achieve those goals with passion. It is the combination of clear goals, strong will, passion, and wisdom that enables them to fulfill their work of life even though reaching their ideals sounds like squeezing water out of rocks. This kind of people are great leaders, philanthropists, thinkers, entrepreneurs, creators, and pioneers in human history, and no one, even the most brilliant conman, can fool them with scripts.
Think and fight, and we shall be free
It may be true, for the vast majority of people, that no matter how hard they try their destiny is dominated by the accidents determined by their role in the system. It may also be true that most people are just playing their roles in a great con set up by those in power. However, let us not forget that if we think and fight hard enough, we shall be free.
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KevinChang
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|