Ms. Bridgette Davis is a journalist, a screenwriter, a director, an author, a producer and my professor. Just to mention it, she originally wanted to be a psychiatrist, but biology and chemistry classes caused her to change her mind (thank God!). Davis started her career at Spelman College in Atlanta, Georgia, where she majored in English. Later, she moved to New York and got her masters degree in Journalism. Bridgett said she always wanted to live in New York. She first fell in love with the city from the movie, Barefoot in the Park, a comedy starring Robert Redford and Jane Fonda, which I remembered seeing also. From visiting New York when she was 18 and during her summers as a teenager, she decided to come here because it felt like home. The noise, the city that never sleeps atmosphere, the creative centers, and much more attracted her to the city and it was not like that in Georgia. Even being mugged in Brooklyn and spraining her ankle by falling down subway stairs has not deterred her from this place.
Besides falling in love with New York, while in New York, she fell in love with filmmaking. It started when Bridgett was writing a novel, which did not turned out the way she wanted, to put it nicely. Out of frustration, she decided to attended screenwriting classes at NYU with Janet Roach, who co-wrote Prizzi’s Honor, starring Jack Nicholson and Angelica Houston. She immediately fell in love with screenwriting because it mixed her other two loves, Journalism and Fiction-writing. Since then, Bridgett has become a director and a producer with such films as Naked Acts (which my class will see in December and I can’t wait) in 1998. The film has been shown in more than two-dozen festivals all over the world, such as in United States, Africa and Europe. She enjoyed traveling because she could be an ambassador to other countries and dialogues with people of different perspectives.
In addition to that, Bridgett was able to continue writing as an author and released novels like Shifting through Neutral and Lagos. She also has written essay for numerous newspapers, such as Washington Posts, Newsday, Wall Street Journal and the Chicago Tribune in her hometown. However, out of all those career paths, the one she enjoys most now is teaching as a professor at Baruch. Teaching came natural to her and it gave her a way to blend all of her careers together. Now, Davis teaches Journalism and Creative writing and Screenwriting, but her favorite is Interdisciplinary Arts. She feels it provides her with an instant gratification because she can introduce her students to new and different things, listen to their reactions, and encourage and help them to express themselves. Bridgett loves how there are always new students each semester to influence and that makes it always seem fresh to her.
Interviewing Ms. Davis was definitely intriguing because she is such a creative person or as her friend said “artsy-fartsy” and she has had such an eclectic career. She has motivated to explore authors, such as Katherine Harrison (obsession novels), Gabriel Garcia Marquez (100 Years of Solitude), Toni Morrison, Faulkner (As I Lay Dying), and Raymond Carver. Also, she sparked my interest in movies, like The Unbearable Likeness of Being, starring Juliet Binoche from Chocolat, which I have seen. Last, she gave great advice on some interested in journalism and creative writing and it helped me because I am interested in music journalism and songwriting. She said to have something to say, a point of view, and be passionate about something you believe in.
Ad Hoc Major Proposal – Words and Music: From Songwriting to Journalism
I came to Baruch because I was interested in majoring in Management of Musical Enterprises. This major matched my love for music and the business side of the music industry. However, as a Macaulay Honors’ student, I was able to take my first Interdisciplinary class, Arts in New York City, which changed my mind. Through this class, I rediscovered my love for writing; I wrote theatre reviews and also a song for my final project. From the age of twelve I wanted to be a writer, particularly a lyricist, and the class brought this desire out more. After the class, I realized that I wanted to incorporate more writing into my studies. So, at first I was going to minor in English, but I felt that it was wrong to make writing secondary to my major. Since there was no major that combined music, business and writing, I was trying to fit into a major that was not completely for me. Looking on the Internet, I found out that there are very few majors involving music journalism and songwriting. A student has to either major in music or English while taking a minor in the other or double major in both. I want to be able to change this by creating an Ad-hoc major integrating music, lyricism and journalism.
What I have noticed is that the age of the music journalist and the songwriter have ended. Serious music journalists and critics are almost non-existent. Much of it has become a media circus that is funded by the music industry. Journalism no longer critically looking at music, but used as an entertainment tool that involves asking artists what their favorite food or favorite color is and entertainment bloggers like Perez Hilton. Placing music within a social and historical context, and using the history of music and the music industry to explore the different genres of music are rare in journalism. I have so much that I want to say about the music industry but no channel in which to voice it. So, I created my own blog (http://reesesearcandy.blogspot.com) in which I write for entertainment purposes, but also discuss more thought-provoking subjects about music, such as over-commercialization and over-promotion of American Idol and Disney. In my opinion, the field of songwriting has diminished, too. The golden days of famous songwriters like Cole Porter, Ira and George Gershwin, Irving Berlin and recently, Diane Warren and David Foster are gone. Even singer-songwriters, like Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, Joni Mitchell and Carol King, are not as popular as before. The music industry is all about making money, not artistic creativity. I do not know if I will be the one to change that, but I want to make an effort to bring some of those times back.
Learning about music in general is important to any music career. For the journalism side, courses like Music History and Music and Society are essential. Some of the courses for music journalism can also apply to songwriting, such as American Pop Song and Harmony classes. In the Journalism/Creative Writing department, Journalistic Writing, Feature Article Writing, Copy Editing, and Journalistic Criticism and Reviewing will help me in the journalism side to cover both industry news and reviews. I also want to create a Creative Writing independent study course called Analysis and Creation of Song Lyrics because I believe song lyrics are just as important as the music.
I am glad that I chose Baruch as my college because it offers the opportunity to form a major that reflects one’s interests and not just to conform to what everyone else is trying to accomplish. By creating the major of combining music journalism and songwriting, I hope to create my own music magazine and write songs for other artists in the future. My ad-hoc major will not only make me a well-rounded person in music, journalism, and creative writing, but also will organize these areas into an authentic field of interest.
Prerequisites
Msc 1003 or 1005- Music in Civilization
Eng 2100/2150 – Writing I & II
FPA 2000- Fine and Performing Arts Administration
JRN 3050 – Journalistic Writing
Fine and Performing Arts – 15 credits
Msc 3026/3027 – Harmony I & II
Msc 3043/3044 – Music History I & II
Msc 4900 – Music and Society
Msc 3022 – American Popular Song (Currently Taking)
English Department – 18 credits
JRN 3100 – Copy Editing
JRN 4920 – Strategies of Journalistic Writing
JRN 3060 – Feature Article Writing
JRN 3400 – Journalistic Criticism/Reviewing
JRN 5000 – Independent Study: Analysis and Creation of Song Lyrics
Do you remember when you were a child and your parents taught you that phrase so you could cope with your classmates teasing you. Now, that I am all grown up, you know what I have come to realize, that phrase is a big, old, fat LIE! Words can hurt just like sticks and stones and sometimes even worse. The bruises and broken bones from sticks and stones will probably heal, but it can take a long time for the words in your heart and mind to heal. The idea that words mean nothing is completely ludicrous. If that was true, language itself, poetry, lyrics in songs, books, dialogue and anything that included words would mean nothing to us. Girls would not be committing suicide or leaving school over what people are saying about them in chatrooms, myspace, facebook, school, etc. You would not be so offended if people were gossiping about you, slandering your name, putting fake information about you in the tabloids, ruining you reputation based on what they said. Words can ruin lives and it can kill. As it is in the Bible, “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21). Why do you think verbal abuse exist in the first place! Think of the children out there whose lives went down the drain after negative things were said to them over and over. On negative word had a greater impact on them than a dozen positive words. This whole rant started over the word “nigger,” which has been one of the worst words in history and if words meant nothing, that it is just a word, that word would have never been the source of hatred and debate for centuries. Also, putting a claim on a word is just as foolish because anyone can say a word. It is not yours, it is everyone’s to possess. So, the only way to control it is to be careful of the words we use because we know we can hurt someone with it. Be encouraging and educating, not damaging in your use of words. God Bless.
Update: Here are what two journalist said about the phrase:
‘Sticks and stones may break my bones,’ goes the children’s rhyme, ‘but words will never hurt me.’ One wonders whether the people on the receiving end‥would agree.
[1980 Cosmopolitan Dec. 137]
Sticks and stones may break some bones, but, as every journalist knows, words truly hurt. They rouse the fiends of fury, litigation and letters to the press.
[2001 Times 28 Dec. 20]
Soul Music is often described as the fusion of traditional African-American Gospel, secular Rhythm and Blues and the Blues. As other music styles, Soul music developed regionally and certain cities had a specific sound. The five major cities in which Soul music developed were Detroit (Motown sound), Philadelphia (Sweet Philly, Gamble and Huff), Chicago (Chess Records, etc.), Memphis (Deep/Country/Southern Soul, Stax sound) and Muscle Shoals (Alabama’s FAME). Although Soul music developed in both Southern and Northern cities, its origins and many of its artists were of a Southern Gospel orientation and as the music went further up north, it had more of a commercial sound.
Originating in the late 1950s and remaining popular from the 1960s to mid 1980s, Soul music mixed the Gospel vocal style with funk rhythms from R&B and the Blues. The timbre of singers and instrumentalists in Soul can range from having a raspy, harsh sound to a smoother, sweeter sound to express varying emotions. Common instrumentation in Soul is specific emphasis on the horn section (trumpets, saxophones, trombones), organ (and/or piano), bass, drum kit, and guitar. Often traditional Gospel songs were taken and transformed into secular Soul songs, such as “In the Midnight Hour” by Wilson Pickett and “Lovable” by Sam Cooke. One of the innovators of the genre was Ray Charles, who secularized the aspects of Gospel music that included chord changes, song structures, call-and-response, and the vocalist’s pleading, wails, moans and screams. Other important innovators were Sam Cooke, James Brown (who later was at the forefront of the offshoot, Funk music, which focused more on the horn section and the bass), Etta James, The Isley Brothers, Marvin Gaye, AL Green and Wilson Pickett. Aretha Franklin, the “Queen of Soul,” and Otis Redding, the “King of Soul,” further popularized the genre. Later, Soul music branched into different styles, including Psychedelic Soul, which influenced Funk music, and Disco.
Three great Soul songs are Otis Redding’s “Try a Little Tenderness,” Sam Cooke’s “Bring it On Home to Me,” and The Temptations’ “I Wish It Would Rain.” These songs demonstrate the broad stylistic range of soul music. Otis Redding (Stax Records) was part of the Memphis sound, Sam Cooke was part of the Philly sound and The Temptations was part of the Detroit (Motown) sound. These three artists have some similarities. They all came from Southern origins , and, along with many other Soul artists, started as church singers. Furthermore, the three songs all have characteristic typical of the Soul genre. Each of the songs has a raspy-voiced lead singer, a melismatic style, use of many ad-libs throughout the song, and a horn section.
“Try a Little Tenderness” is a love song that was written by “Irving King” (James Campbell and Reginald Connelly) and Harry M. Woods. The Ray Noble Orchestra with vocalist Val Rosing originally recorded it in 1932. The most popular version of the song was recorded by Otis Redding in 1966. Booker and the MGs was the backing band on the record. Starting off with a short intro of the horn section, Otis sings with the drum, lead guitar and bass behind him. Next, the saxophone comes leading the way for the tempo to become quicker, which it does during every hook, and the meter switches from duple to quadruple. In the end, the tempo is very fast and the trumpets come in with a blast. It has three verses in AAB, a hook in AAB, a bridge in ABAB, and then Otis ad-libs the rest.
This is one of my favorite Soul songs because of its energy; the song slowly builds up until it culminates with a loud explosion of all the instruments, especially the horn section. Another distinct feature of the song is its similarity to Country Blues. The entire song depends on one vocalist, Otis, who has a clear country tinge to his voice, which is in a lower vocal range and is grittier sounding than other singers. The only resemblance of “background singers” in the song is the melodic horns behind him. In addition to that, it reveals the influence Tin Pan Alley music had on the genre, since Otis Redding was able to take a pop song and make it into a Soul classic.
Sam Cooke started as a Gospel singer with the Stirrers and then switched to secular music, but he was always trying to be commercial, so he often added a soulful tinge to pop songs. “Bring it On Home to Me” was a 1961 hit song written and recorded by Sam Cooke. Lou Rawls did the backing vocals for this song. With a very slow tempo and a meter of 4/4, it only has a saxophone, string section, a guitar, drums and piano. Instead of verse-chorus-verse format, the entire song is in AAB format with 5 verses. Starting with a piano intro and drums, each verse switches the instruments used to lead – piano, piano and violas, violins, saxophone, then back to violins. Sam and Lou Rawls do a call-and-response after each hook in which they say “yeah” over and over. Both of them are the driving force in the song since the instruments play very soft, but their voices are very raspy and rough. So, in a sense it is softer and sweeter Soul, but still gives that powerfulness and fervor.
“Bring It Home to Me” is very much like “blues ballad.” It is in AAB format and both the instruments and the vocalists have a soulful, bluesy tone. However, the orchestral sound with use of a the string section and emphasis on the piano gives it a sweeter and softer sound unlike “Try a Little Tenderness.” Lou Rawls also rounds out Sam Cooke’s voice by bottoming out the sound. All of these factors create a great balance of pop, R&B and the blues, which later influenced smooth soul in the 70s.
“I Wish it Would Rain” was a 1967 hit for the Temptations. Norman Whitfield produced the song and wrote it with Barrett Strong and Roger Penzabene. The Funk Brothers did the instrumentation on the song, which included piano, drums, violins, guitars, trumpets and sound effects like birds, rain and thunder storms. David Ruffin was known for having a raspy voice and his did show off the soulful voice he has, but it is more contained and laidback than Sam Cooke’s voice in “Bring it On Home to Me.” Also, having the other members of The Temptations smoothed out his voice (which could explain why there were so many vocal groups at Motown). It has a verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-verse-chorus format. With a piano intro, the song begins with the drummer lightly tapping on the cymbals and the bass guitar playing softly in the background as David sings the first verse. Then the piano, drums, bass and violins pick up the tempo, keeping the quadruple meter and the volume. The trumpets enter in and play in each verse. The violins lead the bridge part and the Temptations repeat the hook. Like the two other songs, there are a number of ad-libs at the end after the last chorus.
Unlike the other two songs, “I Wish It Would Rain” is reminiscent of Doo-wop because of the group’s smooth vocal harmonies. On the other hand, like “Bring It On Home to Me,” the piano and violins give it a smoother sound. Although the song is supposed to be melancholy, the music has a lighter sound and higher range than the other two songs. Still, David Ruffin’s voice has the raspy and soulful sound that blends with the other group members. However, his singing is more controlled and neater sounding than Otis and Sam. Even though the song is not as soulful as the other two, the emotion is still there in Ruffin’s voice and the music is catchy.
Often Soul music is placed under the blanket term R&B. Although all Soul music can be classified as R&B because of similar stylistic features and its influence on it, not all R&B music can be classified as Soul music. Within Soul music, there is a more passionate emotionality in the music, especially the horn section, and vocals. R&B is more pop and commercial black music (e.g. Rihanna, Brandy). That is why it is called “Soul” because it has a strong effect on the listener deep inside. Still, some R&B and Doo-wop singers had a strong impact like Little Willie John, Louis Jordan, Ruth Brown, and Jackie Wilson. After the death of Marvin Gaye in 1984 and his last hit, “Sexual Healing,” what was known as traditional Soul music came to an end. With the increasing popularity of Hip-hop, new genres and artists that were soul influenced developed. Hip-hop Soul, which was led by Mary J. Blige and continued with Jodeci, Dru Hill, Monica, R. Kelly and Keyshia Cole, mixes Hip-hop beats with Gospel-influenced, soulful vocals. Neo-Soul (Nu-Soul) mixes 1970s Soul (mostly Philly) with Hip-hop Soul and includes artists like Erykah Badu, D’Angelo, Lauryn Hill, Maxwell, Jill Scott and Anthony Hamilton.
Out of all the Soul “sounds,” the Memphis Soul and Muscle Shoals styles are highly respected Soul music. All the other styles were derived from them and used elaborate arrangements and pop-styled, soul vocals in order to try to crossover. The worst culprit of this was Motown; while most of it was great music, it still at times appeared as if the label was selling out, especially with The Supremes (Gordy chose Diana Ross because she had a pop sound, while Mary and Florence had more of a soulful sound). It make the label popular and certain groups famous, but at what cost? Several artists, like Marvin Gaye and Stevie Wonder, felt a tight leash was on them from Berry Gordy because he wanted them to stay commercial. Stax Records, FAME studios and even others, like Chess Records, may not have been as commercially successful as Motown, but they were more comfortable with sticking to their roots and being real. It took the political and the social turmoil of the late 1960s and the 1970s, for Berry Gordy to realize that his label had to change.
In today’s “democratic” society, we rest on the ideal of individualism and freedom. We are supposed to have the freedom to vote, freedom to buy (as consumers), and freedom to choose, all of which are own personal, individual choices with no influence by or reliance on others. However, that is where the major contradiction in our society lies. Although we claim to be individualistic and have freedom, we do not realize that we are extremely dependent on others for our livelihoods and that only have freedom from traditional and formal institutional structures, but not other freedoms, such as psychological freedom, social and cultural freedom, enfranchisement and self-determination. The ideals that we live under lets us be indifferent to the suffering that our type of society causes others and ourselves and as a result we feel less accountable to it. Both Berger and Derber discuss the contradictions of individualism and the “bi-polar” nature of freedom through publicity and “corpocracy,” respectively, and how it affects us socially, politically and economically.
In “Ways of Seeing,” Berger describes how publicity is related to ideas of freedom, which are the freedom of choice of the purchaser (buyer) and the freedom of enterprise for the manufacturer. While we do have choices to an extent, to choose between this product and that product, our choices are limited (to mostly mainstream, monopolistic products) and our choices are basically aimed for one choice – to buy or not to buy. As consumers, businesses and economists tell us that we have the power and we determine what is sold. However, that is not entirely true. Corporations present us with the products that they want us to buy through publicity, we buy these products and become poorer in the process (giving corporations more power over us, since we work for money and basically give the money back to them), and they also make us feel inadequate if we do not buy these products. Publicity always appeals to the future buyer and so, no matter how much we buy, we will never be satisfied. All of this produces low self-esteem and self-consciousness as people, putting us in a psychological box of needing stuff to fulfill our need to be appreciated by others because we feel alone in our individualistic society. It more like the products and corporations have power over us, not the other way around. By buying so much stuff, we are being envied. It only gives us the façade of power; the sense that we are in an exclusive club that only people who can afford it can be in and having the looks of envy that we depend on to feel like we are somebody.
Berger also states how publicity uses references to works of art of the past. The art reference is a sign of wealth and cultural superiority, which also creates a sense of excludability. However, as our society claims individuality, publicity depends on works of art from the past to prove credibility. Once again it prove that there is nothing new or original, which is a characteristic of being individual, but instead is a characteristic of something that is traditional or classic. In addition to that, we lack the knowledge to know the references of these ads. We are not forced to be accountable to know the entire history or context behind them. They are meaningless to us and we then take it for granted and see it as original ideas, perpetuating the individualistic ideas of our society. Another lack of accountability is the indifference we feel to events that happen in the world to strangers because publicity is “eventless.” Since the images essentially mean nothing, anything that is real that it is based on means nothing too.
Last, Berger states how publicity allows us to substitute democracy for consumption. The choice of products takes the place of political choices. It covers and makes up for all that is unfair in our society. It also disconnects us from others because we see them as a means to an end (capital, products) or products themselves. This makes it more difficult to form political activist groups that can combat huge corporations that are gaining more political control and are less accountable to the people. The subtle changes that publicity created in our culture lead to the larger worldwide problems discussed in Derber’s article.
Derber’s “One World Under Business” describes how democratic ideals are used to spread capitalism across the world, which he calls “corpocracy.” The article expands on the issues of individualism and freedom discussed in Berger’s article to a bigger picture of government and global corporations. He says how “in a robust democracy, there is a firewall between government and business. The firewall ensures that people rather than business control the government and make the rules” (Derber, 429). However, in our democracy, government’s interest lies in protecting profits, while corporations use the language of social responsibility to mask their undemocratic actions. Corporate elites are part of that exclusive club that we envy. Just as we substitute democracy for consumption to mask all that is undemocratic in society (Berger), corporations do it in reverse by using democratic language instead of profit-maximizing language to mask undemocratic behavior. Also, countries with very low GDP have no choice but to trade their political power for economic growth and as Friedman said, “your political choices…get reduced to Pepsi and Coke” (Derber, 433). We have less political power and corporations have more political power and in order for us to accept that, we hold onto having economic power or democracy (which we do not really have) and corporations claim to show social accountability. This allows corporation to define their own rules, such as making free trade interchangeable with deregulation, which does not help poorer countries grow, but makes them weaker. Also, these large corporations become huge moneymaking monopolies, just as the mainstream products we have within our country.
Furthermore, just as consumers, corporations through free market and individualistic ideas do not feel accountable to the people that they depend on – their workers and the peripheral countries they rely on for raw materials (also, additional workers and consumers). Derber described this as uncoupling, which is when the corporation removes itself from the interest of the nation or citizens of a nation. They claim equal loyalty to all nations, once again cushioning it in democratic language. Also, it forces developing nations to be entrapped further in the corporation world and transfer their political power into power as a consumer, resulting in governments who are not able to be accountable to their own people because they are restricted by corporations and global financial market institutions (IMF, WTO, etc.). Through the abuses of the poorer people in these developing countries, the powers we have in our own countries are undermined.
Although corporations would like for us to believe that we have an economic democracy or economic choices, we do not because we cannot regulate our own economic system that basically tells us what we want. As Derber says, “Real democracy is one person, one vote. One dollar, one vote, is the logic of the market, but it is opposite of the equal representation of all citizens that democracy is about. As a sovereign principle, one dollar, one vote, is inherently undemocratic, and it ensures a growing gap between rich and poor because it gives the rich far more political representation” (Derber, 439). These rich corporations have a lot more money than most of us and in result have a lot more political and social say in our “market democracy.” Also, in this “market democracy,” those who do not have any money have no a say at all. Countries look at our society as “The Free World” because the lack the economies and capital to buy all the stuff we have (the ability to choose products). For example, from Derber’s article, the boy in Africa who did not have shoes but had the Nike swoosh label scratched into his foot. In our society, with the poor and now even the middle-class, it is becoming more difficult to buy the necessities we need, even though we can see the things we would like to have through advertising. More and more, people have to choose between food, shelter, medication, health insurance and other needs. Still, corporations do not care as long as the consumers buy their products and consumers still try to buy it, even if they do not have the money for it (get loans, credit cards, etc.). In the end, corporations get their money and often more money than the products were actually worth.
Our individualistic society also reinforces racism and sexism by “blaming the victim.” Without the traditional and formal structures from the past, the victims of racism and sexism cannot clearly point that those in power are discriminating against them. So, the power elite can say that it is that the individuals’ fault why they are in the situation they are in and not a social structural problem that keeps them from getting ahead. Color-blind racism and “sexless” sexism exist because of the removal of the formal barriers and allows power elites to claim “reverse discrimination.” Globally, this has affected developing nations, which are often non-European countries that were colonized in the past. Unfair economic practices are put upon these nations, such as lowering tariffs and taking down “trade borders,” in order to create “a leveled playing field” for trade, but it only benefits wealthy European and American corporations. The core countries do not take into consideration that the developing countries’ infrastructure is very weak and “leveling” their trade makes it easier for the corporations, who already have more economic and political power. Core countries (and corporations) and developing countries were never on an equal playing field and it takes more for these countries to be on the same platform as the corporations. Still, they say it is the countries’ fault why their economies and governments are not stable. “Market democracy” allows those with more money (usually white males) to use their money to influence government to makes policies that indirectly harm non-whites and females.
Fromm’s “The Two Aspects of Freedom for Modern Man” analyzes the idea that freedom has two meanings: “freedom from” and “freedom to.” Both Derber and Berger reflect on the ideas from Fromm’s article in their own articles. “Freedom from” is the freedom from traditional bonds and structures, which gave people the new feeling of individualism and independence. But the individual did not get “freedom to,” which is psychological and informal social (personality) freedoms. Although he is “independent, self-reliant and critical,” the individual feels “alone and isolated, filled…with doubt and anxiety,” and does not feel as if he has control of his own life due to “inner restraints and compulsions” (Fromm, 105). It is a new type of submission with new dependencies that are harder to recognize and solve. It is hard to recognize because we are fixed on the “old forms of authority and restrain” (which is why color-blind racism and “sexless” sexism works). Today, we lack “freedom to,” such as freedom to have our own opinions (we are either influenced by public opinion or our opinions are considered deviant), freedom to have faith and not just scientific belief, freedom to not conform or be self-conscious, freedom to not fear being different, and freedom to be ourselves. As Fromm said we need the freedom that “enables us to realize our own individual self, to have faith in this self and in life.” Not having certain freedoms, like freedom to know that we are somebody, to know that we are not alone, that there are others who go through similar situations as us, and to know we are all dependent on each other creates the feelings of insignificance and powerlessness (i.e., my vote or my opinion does not matter; I am only one person). Also, “freedom from” created a disconnection from historical contexts as we try to not acknowledge that certain events happened and still have an impact on us (some people believe that slavery and the Holocaust do not impact our society anymore, but they still are having residual effects). “Freedom from” created a disconnection from oneself, others and history (it never happened before me) and thus created a weak individual who feels insecure, alone and isolated. As a result, within the capitalistic system, we easily feel the need to create capital and buy products, or we feel like we are nothing. We become servants who need to continuously work to make capital, and helping others or doing what you love is seen as an unproductive purpose. By removing that support system through “freedom from,” people today lack the strength to create political, social and economic change that would be available with “freedom to.”
Welcome to Macaulay Eportfolio Collection. Welcome to my blog. Since I am a writer, I will be publishing any compositions I have done and will do while I am attending Macaulay Honors. This includes essays I have done for class and personal essays I did on the side. Most of the pieces I will post will be related to arts and culture.