Myths, Narratives, and Grand Narratives

I think the reason why myths and more specifically narratives are created is to explain the unexplainable. It is human nature to always want to have a right answer, but when one cannot be found, an answer, any answer, is made up. Powell explains Lyotard's theories on why myths work by saying, "Myths legitimize themselves-make themselves believable-just in the telling.” He means that just by telling the story and getting everyone to believe it, the story actually becomes a reality. It is no longer a myth if all of a society agrees on it. In a way, this is how all things work. Like Mr. D’s example with stoplights, green does not actually mean, “go” nor does red mean, “stop.” It is merely the fact that society agrees on a certain color to represent a command that makes those colors have an affect on us.

He continues by saying, “The myth requires no authorization other than itself.” In some ways, the culture becomes based off the myth. “[It] defines what has the right to be said and done in the culture.” Based on what is said in the myth, the standards of society will follow. The myth sets the “rules” in which society lives by.

Grand narratives or metanarratives are similar to narratives only they are, “big stories of mythic proportions, that claim to be able to account for, explain and subordinate all lesser, little local narratives.” Unlike narratives, metanarratives don’t focus on one topic, but instead a more general idea. In my opinion, most religions are metanarratives, composed of many narratives. Most religions have a central idea that is supported by many smaller ideas that support the larger one. These kinds of narratives are created for the same reason, that is to account for something that cannot be proven, only it is on a much larger scale. That’s about all I’ve got to say.

Brave New World

This whole Brave New World book is in my opinion a little sickening. To think that a world exists where humans are “manufactured” seems like an oxymoron in itself. How can a human even be “manufactured?” One can’t. I’d say the “humans” in Brave New World are more like robots than anything. They’re made for specific jobs, to like certain things and to dislike other things.

The whole society in Brave New World seems completely backwards to me. It is socially acceptable to go out with tons of different people, but if you are seeing someone steadily, it is considered abnormal. Furthermore, children are encouraged to play “rudimentary sexual games.” When one child doesn’t do this, the nurse freaks out. She says, “It’s just that this little boy seems rather reluctant to join in the ordinary erotic play.” If there was one sentence to show how messed up this society was, I think it’d be this one. A little boy who doesn’t want to play erotically? And the nurse takes him to the Assistant Superintendent of Psychology??? Really!? And to top it off, this erotic play is not like an every once in a while thing. It’s, “ordinary.” What does that even mean? As the children grow up, are they exposed to “sexual games” daily? The thought of that really just makes me feel like throw-up.

Also, the idea of hypnopaedia seems like a cool deal, but I feel it is being used in the absolute wrong way. To use it for intellectual gain would be one thing, but it seems like they’re using it to sort of, “brainwash” young kids into liking their particular status. They’re taking away their natural instincts, and replacing it with artificial thoughts. How then, can these children actually be called human? Although it is not these kids’ faults, they still cannot be called human, because as the principle of hypnopaedia is put into effect, the children lose the first basic quality that all humans should possess: being able to think for one’s self. Without this, how can these people or children be called human?

History

I have never really thought about "history" the same way that I am thinking of it now. To me “history” has always been the facts. Year after year, a teacher has taught me what the textbooks tell them to teach us. But as I’ve been thinking, I’ve realized that “history” can never be factual in the same way that other subjects such as mathematics or sciences can be. The reason for this is that in order to write “history” one must recall the situations and events that took place. Therefore, the best source for truth would be the primary source, someone who actually witnessed the event taking place. And to get a more accurate list of these “facts” many points of views must be combined to make a single “fact” that becomes what we know to be, “history”.

But who is to say what is good enough to make it into these textbooks? Why does it matter what you put in the curriculum? What is important? Can the question of importance ever be answered? I think not. Here we find the dilemma of religion being inserted into textbooks or staying out of them. We all know that separation between church and state is a huge part of our country, but where is the line drawn between the two? Do we exclude any and all forms of religion? Or is it ok to teach about religions, but not necessarily to preach them. If we make it ok to teach about religions, we will encounter the problem of biased teachers and even students. Religion is an emotional thing, in which people get very passionate about. If a textbook teaches about the principals of Christianity, and the course is being taught by a teacher of another faith, the class lecture could easily erupt into a religious debate. On a similar note, if not all religions are represented within the text, then the text itself becomes biased.

This brings us back to the question, where is the line drawn? Once the influence that one religion has had on a country enters a textbook, all religions and their “influences” (again, who is to say what religions have or have not had significant impact on a country?) must be entered. If this is the case, will then other historical figures such as Cesar Chavez and Thurgood Marshall be “vaporized” as Sean pointed out, or as the article suggests?

With all these questions in play, one must consider the consequences that inserting religion into textbooks would have.