Final introduction
Argh! Panic. LOL! This is my final draft of the introduction, hopefully it'll be something like this when we do it! Good luck to everyone today, fingers crossed.
Baudrillard suggests that instead of a relationship between a word and an object or concept it denotes, we interpret the signifier in terms of it’s relationships with other signifiers. To quote “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real“. (Baudrillard, p7) So, instead of associating virtues or idleness with the quality or act, we define them by their exchange with other terms. This could mean that (with OED guidance), we exchange idleness with inactivity or abstinence from work - which may then be exchanged with laziness or apathy. Exchanging terms, in Baudrillard’s opinion leads to indeterminacy. If we agree with Baudrillard, perhaps we may not use the terms virtue or idleness to accurately denote a quality or behaviour at all. Baudrillard suggests that binary opposition does not exist. There is no ‘real’ distinction between, say, good and bad. If this was acceptable, virtues and their binary opposite of vices or sin would not be distinguishable either. If we use the traditional definition or the symbolic exchange theory, it seems that virtues constitute morals or acceptability.
If virtues are a component of morals or vice versa, we may argue, as Nietzsche does, that morals are almost arbitrary tools for controlling a person's will. Morals and virtues are therefore inflicted from external sources (notably religion) as a way of preventing people from choosing the way they live. If this is the case, then idleness could be construed as a way of merely exercising the right to choice and actual free will rather than subscribing to the notion that free will is ours even though we do what is expected of us. Idleness may be consisdered as an escape from the repressive froms of behaviour we are encouraged to undertake.
Why is idleness deviant?Most of us are governed by the influence of society, rather than the influence of self. Nietzsche for one indicated that any freedom we have is imagined, and he could be right! We adhere to norms and conventions because it is the acceptable thing to do. It is dangerous to be different. If a person does not conform, they are labelled as different. The generally acceptable mode of behaviour is to work (loosely translated as economic contribution to society, not to self)
Baudrillard suggests that instead of a relationship between a word and an object or concept it denotes, we interpret the signifier in terms of it’s relationships with other signifiers. To quote “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real“. (Baudrillard, p7) So, instead of associating virtues or idleness with the quality or act, we define them by their exchange with other terms. This could mean that (with OED guidance), we exchange idleness with inactivity or abstinence from work - which may then be exchanged with laziness or apathy. Exchanging terms, in Baudrillard’s opinion leads to indeterminacy. If we agree with Baudrillard, perhaps we may not use the terms virtue or idleness to accurately denote a quality or behaviour at all. Baudrillard suggests that binary opposition does not exist. There is no ‘real’ distinction between, say, good and bad. If this was acceptable, virtues and their binary opposite of vices or sin would not be distinguishable either. If we use the traditional definition or the symbolic exchange theory, it seems that virtues constitute morals or acceptability.
If virtues are a component of morals or vice versa, we may argue, as Nietzsche does, that morals are almost arbitrary tools for controlling a person's will. Morals and virtues are therefore inflicted from external sources (notably religion) as a way of preventing people from choosing the way they live. If this is the case, then idleness could be construed as a way of merely exercising the right to choice and actual free will rather than subscribing to the notion that free will is ours even though we do what is expected of us. Idleness may be consisdered as an escape from the repressive froms of behaviour we are encouraged to undertake.
Why is idleness deviant?Most of us are governed by the influence of society, rather than the influence of self. Nietzsche for one indicated that any freedom we have is imagined, and he could be right! We adhere to norms and conventions because it is the acceptable thing to do. It is dangerous to be different. If a person does not conform, they are labelled as different. The generally acceptable mode of behaviour is to work (loosely translated as economic contribution to society, not to self)
posted by Rebecca Coward at 7:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home