Today in class we chose our topics for the paper on The Crucible, which is due on Jan. 21. The paper should be roughly three pages and should include proper heading, title (centered, no underline/italics), and MLA citation (parenthetical, no footnotes, etc). Some other requirements are: a strong thesis statement in the introduction, good topic sentences and transitions between paragraphs, supporting details, explanation for any external sources, and a conclusion that does not repeat previously mentioned ideas (should answer the question ‘So what?’ or ‘Why should I care?’). The order in which the paper is written is not confined, as long as it makes logical sense to the reader.
We then discussed the question (During the attempt to get Mary Warren to testify, Proctor says "They're all marvelous pretenders." Why, when asked to do so, is Mary Warren incapable of pretending to faint? She says that there is something lacking. What is lacking? What is the difference between acting and being?) from Act Three of the play. What Mary Warren was lacking that made her unable to pretend to be fainting when asked to do so during court was mainly public support. Because she was by herself and put on the spot, it was hard for her to react to the command. The fact that she was being watched also changes things. This is essentially the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, the concept being that any occurrence observed is changed by being observed. Psychologically speaking, her behaviors can be explained by mob mentality, which refers to unique behavioral characteristics that emerge when people are in large groups. Basically, people are willing to go with the mob and do things that they normally would not/unable to do(i.e. pep rally, football games, etc).
We also talked about the emotional suppression in the Puritan society as a possible cause for the need of an outlet for the teenage girls (although technically there was no term defining the transition between childhood and adulthood). Since the girls were considered as children, they were essentially powerless when it comes to any matters. The process of implicating others renders the powerless the powers that they innately desired. This also gives them the chance to do things that are sanctioned and allows the release of their frustration.
As for the connection between acting and being, we said that sometimes if one does something frequently enough, one may very well be able to convince oneself to believe in it – whether it is consciously or subconsciously.
Julie W
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I would just like to elaborate a little more on the difference between acting and being since we only really touched upon it in class. I personally believe that there is no certain line we can draw between acting and being because so often the two can be the same. Haven't you ever known someone who always seemed to be acting? Like they were just putting on a show for eveyone else? For some, this is their being: they are by nature a pretender (though not necessarily a liar, per se). What about when people create new images for themselves? Change their names? I have at least two or three friends who have changed their names (not legally, though) and re-vamped their whole images. Is that acting? Or is it being? They weren't pretending before and they aren't pretending now, so I'd say no. But they have all become very different, so how is that being who they truly are? But perhaps "being" is deeper than names and images- how they react in certain situations, how kind they are, how they define right and wrong. But these, too, can all change... or so it may seem. We are never going to be able to see every facet of someone's being, sometimes even if we are very close with them. Also, the difference between acting and being is a very subjective thing. Even knowing a person's behavioral history and examining individual situations is not enough. We can't know what someone may be hiding from us or if they believe their own lies. And if that weren't enough, everyone has their own definition of "being yourself." But wait, there's more- don't forget to add in the possibility of mental illness or personality disorder, and suddenly you find that, really, drawing this line is virtually impossible. Sometimes you can't even do so for yourself, because you can conciously choose who you'd like to be or how you choose to see things. I'm sure that there could be a distinction somewhere, to be found only by dieties and the spiritually enlightened, but seeing as neither you nor I am divine, I do not think we could hope to ever really be able to make that distinction.
~Olivia
I believe the difference between acting and being can be nicely described by Hayakawa's principles of maps and territories. Acting is when a person is creating a map to a false or unreal territory while being is when the map that is created matches the territory being represented. However this line is often hard to judge when we have never experienced the actual territory. For example a normally energetic effervescent person suddenly begins acting depressed and gloomy. This situaition could either be acting where the territory is actually energetic, or it could be "being" where (due to outside circumstances) the territory has changed from energetic to gloomy and depressed. The key to all of it is how we view reality in respect to a territory.
-Tyler H
I definetely agree with that comparison (when we're assuming that there is a difference between the two, that is) and that you also have to take outside circumstances into account. Which, of course, only makes judging the already virtually impossible differentiation that much more difficult.
~Olivia
I also think that it is important to ask the question: When does a person acting one way become the person that he or she is pretending to be? Let me clarify, can anyone just "be" something? For example, if a person goes their entire life acting "nice" towards others and tries to always think "nice" thoughts and never does anything "bad," then does that make the person "nice?"
I don't believe that this is a valid argument because, as the Puritans believed, everyone has the capability to do certain things (sin). People are also very dynamic and are constantly changing, so it would be impossible to decide that a person "is" a specific characteristic.
I guess that I am trying to say that people are always acting and that sometimes it can be twisted and assimilated into the way they think. Therefore, the actions of a person can only suggest who that person "is," but as Tyler and Olivia said, it is just maps and territories and there would be no way for us to determine the true value of a persons actions.
Kelsey
After re-reading Olivia's first comment, I thought of something else that I just wanted to quickly add...
Could one say that it is part of human nature to hide one's true motives once in a while in the form of acting? And if the previous suggestion is accepted, couldn't it also be valid to say that acting in itself makes up a portion of "being?"
This was a little difficult to express in words, so if anyone knows what I was trying to say, it would be greatly appreciated if you could give it a try.
Kelsey
I understand exactly what you mean to say- that was one point that I was trying to get across as well. Those who act may not be "being themselves" (which, again, can have many definitions) but the fact that they act is a part of who they are, their "being." This emphasizes the idea that the two are often the same. Acting can be someone's being and being at all is an act in itself. Very rarely are we treated to situations where we aren't presenting any image intentionally or holding back anything. It takes a very high comfort level to not be purposefully acting at all, though we may still be subconsiously. Or maybe not. Again, it's all very subjective and there are more and more terms to be defined. For instance, by "acting" do we mean seeming a certain way or intentionally behaving in a way contrary to your norm (but what if acting IS your norm?) or "true self." Not only are the analyses of different situations subjective, but how you use terms such as "acting", "being", or "being yourself" is extremely subjective. This provides yet another reason why this could never be objectively agreed upon.
I do think, though, like Kelsey said, that hiding things to be accepted or gain the support of others is indeed a part of human nature. We want to be accepted and liked and so sometimes we hide things others might look down upon or disagree with with full knowledge that we are acting... but they don't know that. This raises the question that seems to have been assumed as a "yes," but is acting necessarily a bad thing? Is it always something we should look down upon? I don't think so. Like so many other things, it all depends on circumstance.
~Olivia
Kelsey -
I'm not exactly sure what you meant by 'once in a while in the form of acting,' but I think humans do have the tendency to hide their motives. There's almost always a reason for the things that people do, and if the things that they do are merely acts, then it'd make sense that there are ulterior motives. And the last thing that a good 'actor' would want is to have his reason perceived, so he would, therefore, make efforts to feign - which is to convince either others or himself, otherwise. Even though the entire process seems quite complicated, I believe it can and usually does happen instanteously and subconciously.
Post a Comment