Service as Duty? What the Hell?

Wait. What? Service is a duty that we as human beings, social creatures, are supposed to perform? Get out of here! I want my Facebook! I worked hard in this capitalistic society. I ain’t giving nothing away to nobody that ain’t earned it. I don’t care if it’s my time, my prayers, or money. I sure as hell ain’t giving freebies away.

-

               Immanuel Kant strings his metaphysics through Christianity’s New Testament teachings. “This virtue is greater when the benefactor’s means are limited and he is strong enough quietly to take on himself the hardship he spares the other; then he is really to be considered morally rich.”[1] This clearly originates from Mark’s Gospel of the widow’s offering.[2] From this mixture of metaphysics and theology, Western society is heavily predisposed towards a distanced relationship with others. Nevertheless, whether it is through daily interactions, service, or familial relationships. We have duties. To others.

               Today. We have Jesus as God on earth doing the impossible; loving one another as I have loved you, turning the other cheek. Saints are those individuals that aim for that inverted, unworldly perfection.

Language is a powerful, manipulative tool in both the philosophical and theological arenas.[3] Language has created this everlasting Schism over good works as means for salvation, which is to suggest the profundity of the Saints is dulled. Still, somewhere along the way, we become caught up that we all can’t be Saints. Similarly, works as the pinnacle aspect to our very being, our purpose or goal in life, is somehow bogged down by this Schism. What we get today is some watered-down version of what coincidentally happens to be the Corporal Works of Mercy; done out of the sake of our…for our…

Our what? Our Christian-human nature? No. Christians cannot even agree on whether the implicit biblical language that stresses our human nature is to serve others through works or to be some sort of result from that very nature.

               But wait. Oh, there happens to be this other half of the world called the East. And what is that one Jewel of three called in Buddhism? Dharma is it? Transliterated as duty? And there happens to be six qualities of it too! The first being: Svakkhato. “The Dharma is not a speculative philosophy, but is the Universal Law found through enlightenment and is preached precisely.” (Thanks Wikipedia!) Is this to say there is no gray area in what’s to be done in the Buddhist tradition?[4] There’s no astonishment in duty being part of our nature when it’s esteemed as the Universal Law. 

               Yet, I could sit here and draw parallels between Buddhism’s interpretation of dharma as well as Hinduism’s; the Tao Te Ching, Christianity’s Beatitudes-all of which are interchangeable for what is to be seen as life’s duty (or a guide for it.) It’s no mere coincidence that world religions share similarities on the emphasis of duty. What’s irksome, though, is philosophy’s-particularly Western philosophy as seen through Kant’s metaphysics-assertion to rationalize our duty when all along it’s within the very essence of our being. Not to take philosophy out of its historical context, as it seems to be so often in order to continue being dubbed meritorious in modern times, but the emotional relationship that the religions listed above (and others) foster existed long before metaphysics enabled the world to empirically understand human nature.

               I don’t know why it is incredibly difficult for humans to grasp that our essence implies “relationship” as our distinguishing feature. (Distinguishing us from animals with that rationale we possess and so many philosophers like to draw out as profound.) Where does one human come from? The sexual relationship of two other human beings. And while hermits intentionally deny themselves to partake in that inherent, rudimentary distinguishing feature-that is to say the relationship-mass society lives either in harmony, disharmony, or an amalgamation of both. I heard that morality is the balance of the relationships shared in a community. Morals are the pillars that uphold society. This is to say morals are a measurement of the gravity of relationships (e.g., a stronger communal support for morals implies a more united community.) From our relationships derive our world; we either choose to establish and nurture our relationships or to cripple and damage them.

Therefore, morality, the same found within world religions, implicates we have a duty to others. We can call this service, we can call it love. Language of today suggests that what we now deem as charity, this mindless, almost worthless giving of financial aid, is of lesser value.[5] (Lesser when compared to social justice enacted through service.) Language of yesterday suggests that charity comes from the Latin word caritas, and as any Christian might get giddy over, caritas derives from Greek’s agape. What we know about agape in the Christian sense is that it’s defined as love of fellow man.[6]

Social justice. We can similarly use language to trace justice to iustus, which we can break down to ius, meaning law. What I really like about this etymology-dictionary site I am using as a point of reference is that it takes ius a step further to ious. “‘Sacred formula’…that originated in the religious cults.”[7] Here we are presented with several points I would like to emphasize. Some circles, particularly theocracies, enact certain morals as laws. Second, this etymology emphasizes the bridged gap between human nature and morality with religion. It is no mere coincidence that Kant intertwined beneficence with the widow and the coin.

Nonetheless, the misinterpretation of charity of today (I mentioned above,) is incorrectly separated from social justice. The misinterpretation itself is enough grounds to suggest that the truer sense of charity alone holds more value than the misconception of this sort of aimless giving. But the fact that social justice has roots in this concept of sanctity can be further driven by charity’s truer meaning of love of fellow man. Social justice is charity. Charity is social justice. Because human nature, emphasized by morals, is to foster a relationship with others, both charity and social justice combined are to be seen as an intrinsic duty.  

LIKE the Kleshas and Tanhas Facebook page!

---

[1] Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals. Mary Gregor, trans. (New York: Cambridge, 1991.)

[2] 41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.” (Mark 12:41-44.)

[3] If I might add, I personally find theological language more focalized and straightforward than philosophical jargon. Here’s why. Theology aims to explain nature in a way for believers to understand and follow. Philosophy is a constant dialogue that is questioning nature’s qualities. Both, however, evolve from inner circles of either faith or reason that propel their explanations forward. Theology’s objectivity differs from philosophy’s in that faith enables for a more accepting reception of evolution because it happens more rarely. Philosophy cannot be pinpointed by its believers and subscribers because it is often subject to change.

[4] Yet, there still are divisions in Buddhism.

[5] My classmates made this distinction when the words CHARITY and JUSTICE were written on the whiteboard. Charity became this seasonal tithing during the holiday season; lowered to a sense of tangible giving. Justice was therefore elevated to the only giving (of time) of value.

[6] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=charity&searchmode=none

[7] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=just&allowed_in_frame=0

How Horror Helps Facilitate Happiness

               Another Tuesday morning seemed to roll around. My schedule seems to be working itself out; I did not wake up incredibly fatigued as I have been the past early Tuesday mornings. In fact, I gave myself enough time to enjoy my Lucky Charms this morning without scarfing it down in my timed three minutes and fourteen seconds. It dawned on me that it was cloudy, yet again, and by the time we reached Mercy Neighborhood Ministries (MNM), the sun had peeped out. More residents of the immediate area were outside, maybe as a result of the beautiful weather. I could not tell. The drive was more enjoyable this go-around; the scenery was livelier in autumn and the community in north Philadelphia appeared to be appreciating it as much as I was.

               The gang was finishing breakfast as we rolled up at nine o’clock. The receptionist greeted us as friendly as ever, and collectively, my service partners and I replied in a cheery manner. The familiarity of routine calmed any nerves that I previously had in my new environment. To say that I was comfortable alongside Paul, the grumpy trickster of the crowd, would be an understatement. I could sense when he wanted to call me out for looking at him. But I would not give him the satisfaction of making a wise-crack because I would look away before we would make eye contact.

               Even as delectable as Paul sounds, he has an angry, disgruntled side. I personally find this characteristic of his to be a reality check; he is not an incompetent senior citizen whose senile persona leaves him with nothing to do but smile and crack jokes. If anything, Paul acts like an arrogant sixteen year old. He knows he is good company, yet he plays hard to get. Because he acts more unpredictably than not, I am consequently drawn to his rollercoaster-like attitude.

               The same is to be said for Ms. Caroline and Ms. Shirley; both women lack this lackadaisical trait that so many residents at a nursing home had that I volunteered during the Philadelphia Service Immersion Program. My take on why there are many engaged, energetic members of the MNM is that they choose to attend the programs offered. There are no residents at MNM; everyone chooses to come. I also believe that one of life’s lessons is that one earns their keep from their hard work; you only get what you put in. Since the MNM members have led demanding, urban lifestyles, I think they understand that they would be wasting their own time if they did not participate in any of the day’s activities. Ergo, they are all working hard on their puzzles, praying in the prayer circle, and engaging one another in the most pleasant tones.

               This past Tuesday, Ms. Barbara, the coordinator, was not present. Ms. KayKay was taking over for the time being. It was movie day. I was curious to see what we would end up watching, hoping that it was not going to be a black and white film with some actor I would not recognize. As I sat next to Ms. Caroline in the cafeteria, after she informed about the recall on cantaloupe that I was oblivious to, (thank you university for that tip,) she started listing the movies she brought. Within the list, there was nothing but thrillers and action packed movies; Diehard 2 seemed to be the most moderate. Oh, and there was of course Titanic, but when Paul overheard that was an option, he booed. Shocked at the movie choice of an elderly woman, I decided whatever the members chose would be completely fine with me!

               Mr. Brooks was picked. The back of the movie box claimed that it was one of Kevin Costner’s finest films. It also gave a brief description of a plot in which a psychopathic killer cuts loose and enjoys killing for the excitement. “Hmmm,” was all that I could think. In the past, when I volunteered at summer camps for children, you obviously would not show an R-rated movie to a young audience. Subconsciously, I assumed the same rule would be applied in this instance with an older audience. But precedent depicted that this was not the first time the MNM members watched an action packed, potentially gory movie.

               What I found throughout the twisting plot, the character development of Kevin Costner’s psychopathic killer, and the odd, dark sarcasm that repeatedly showed up as an underlying theme was that different things make different people happy. In the instance of most eighteen year olds, thrillers are enjoyable to watch, especially the ones with many twists and turns. When I realized that I was enjoying the movie, I could not help but wonder if the members on my left and right who were also sitting around the TV were enjoying this great film. They were. Some more than others, like Paul and Ms. Shirley. But to my surprise, as a whole, the group appeared to love the gore and excitement.

               I found out that day that MNM truly catered to the likes of many of its members. With smaller numbers than most nursing homes, the group of members are more affiliated with the decision making process in what their daily activities are. I remember Ms. Barbara explaining to me on our service test-run how the members can choose to not participate in any of the activities and that the schedule can change in an instant if the general consensus shows that no one wants to participate in the upcoming activity. I personally think, with some reflection, that the power to still choose gives many of the MNM members happiness. While various activities will always please some participants more than others, I think their ability to make decisions empowers them. What I have found in the members’ comings and goings is the limitation on their decision making; many of them are bussed over to MNM for the day, and then taken back to their homes. As a college student, I find that very confining. Yet, when they choose to come to MNM, they are offered an array of activities for the day, and I feel deeply obligated to ensure that the activities I help with are the best they can be.

               Even if it is a horror film in which only Paul, Mr. Cranky, is left to cackle insanely over the mutilation of various characters on the screen, I found that allowing for him to choose to watch the movie made all the difference. So every time blood splattered on the screen, I heard this maddening laugh in the back of the room, coming from a very entertained individual…

Why Does the Consumption of Alcohol Go Hand in Hand with the Degradation of Women?

I bet this grabbed some peoples' attention...

              

    An honest disclosure is certainly appropriate before debating the following advertisement; the beer being advertised is a non-alcoholic beer. That being said, the advertisement does not follow the average template most beer ads use. Typically, models in alcohol advertisements are not pregnant. In this instance, the combination of the nonalcoholic product and the model’s pregnancy should shift the viewer’s vantage point because it is nontraditional. There is a pressure the woman faces in which she, for health reasons, normally would not consume alcohol. However, this ad forces an alternative on the woman. It is as if the woman cannot escape social conventions that implicate she should either consume or serve alcohol, regardless of her circumstances. Mass media portrays beer and women as the ideal package. When placed together in advertisements, one always complements the other. When each item is separated, they hold completely different connotations.

                What enables beer and women to be classified in one category? Pleasure, in the Epicurean sense, is the most desirable gratification for human beings. When is beer to be consumed? When individuals want to have an enjoyable time. Why are women typically shown serving beer? Because they add to the pleasure the beer already guarantees. Women, in this instance, promise sensuality. In this particular advertisement, before getting ahead of ourselves and stating that she is pregnant, the viewers are presented with a picturesque female. A sharp model’s face, breasts covered by gold, and long legs that compliment her hips. All of these qualities, as well as the slightly disheveled hair and piercing eyes, are welcoming. The model invites the viewer to partake in consumption. The consumption of first the alcohol, which is being handed out as an initial allure, is then followed by the consumption of what the woman has to offer. 

                One might ask, “What is the problem in that? Why is it wrong to consume what is being put forth so readily available?” The answer: mass advertising has given the consumer the false illusion that he has entire power over what he wants because his money somehow impacts the advertisers. And while many economists and business leaders might argue that power rests in the hands of the consumer, it does not in the instance shown above. The deception the ad holds is presented when the consumer consumes; he is not handed a beer from the woman above. The only promise that the advertisement keeps is the distribution of the actual product.

“Well, isn’t that the aim of the advertisement?” Absolutely. But the consumer is left without the promised sensuality from the woman standing in an inviting posture. Only the advertisers achieve what they want: profit. But at what expense, or rather, at whose expense do the advertisers benefit from? The consumer who purchased the product for its own sole purpose is not exploited. Not as much as the woman in the picture, one could say. The advertisers have taken full advantage of the woman’s physical qualities. The breasts that happen to be covered in a gold brassiere are not coincidentally placed next to the golden yellow beer.

Referring back to Freud, is it not the breasts that the infant desired so fervently? “Freud thought that the infant was transiently attached to the mother’s breast in the oral stage…”[1] Consequently, adults “exhibiting these features of personality are also given to ‘oral’ habits, like…overindulgence in alcohol.”[2] It is at the expenditure of the woman’s physical (and only physical) qualities that the advertisement would catch the consumer’s eyes. The photograph suggests that the beer goes great with a large breast nearby.

“How is that degrading?” The exposed woman’s body generally invites one category of consumers: men. Men (and women) will drink beer to achieve some level of pleasure: relaxation, slight intoxication, or drinking to forget. But the placement of the beer next to the breast implies that drinking the alcohol is as good as the golden breast. They complement one another as if they were equal. Sharing the singe trait of pleasure, a human being’s body is lowered to the level of alcohol. When separate, hopefully people would place higher value on dignity over a manmade depressant. But when they are put together in an ad, the viewer accepts the reduction of the woman to the level of the beer.

What beer advertisements create as a side effect more often than not is the zeroing in on women’s external qualities. Like many advertisements that use female actresses or models, the woman is always depicted as inferior. Between the viewer and the pregnant woman shown above, the woman is consequently lower than the viewer because she promises to hand over the almighty beer. It can be then be argued that the woman, therefore, possesses the power if she holds the product. Again, the advertisers give a false illusion. The beer is not for the woman to give. The woman in the Nova Schin ad is not actually giving the consumer the beer. The standstill woman is just an invitation for purchasing a beer. She does not directly benefit from giving it away. Ultimately, she has no say on who purchases “her” beer.

If the above arguments were not enough to suggest that the woman is being degraded through the exploitation of her external features, than what does her pregnancy imply? A quick reminder for this argument is that in this specific ad, Nova Schin is advertising a non-alcoholic beer. (Yet, it only takes a second example, like the Budweiser advertisement, to prove that alcoholic beer advertisements exploit women in the same manner.) Nevertheless, what the pregnant woman portrays more plainly is social pressure. Though the advertisement may or may not be for men; if the Nova Schin ad is targeted at women, it suggests that there is no reason to not drink under any circumstances, even during one’s pregnancy. Similarly, if the men who consume the product encounter a wife, girlfriend, or random woman that is pregnant, the external goods that women typically offer are depicted as available when there is simultaneously a non-alcoholic beer. This makes viewers uncomfortable because it is indecent and unnatural. Society does not typically place pregnant women alongside alcohol.

The blatant implications of both ads suggest the consumption of either the product first and then the female, or vice versa. The placement of the woman in the Budweiser ad suggests that one must get through her to reach the product where, as stated before, the Nova Schin has to be consumed as an initiation to reach the promised “goods.” In either instance, the woman is exploited through the exposure of her body for the false promise that consuming either product will bring instant pleasure, whether it is through the breasts or the beer.  

---

[1] Storr, Anthony. Freud, A Very Short Introduction. 30. Oxford University Press, USA, 2001. Print. <http://books.google.com/books/feeds/volumes?q=978-0-19-285455-1>.

[2] (Storr, 31.)