Week 6 Journal

Thursday: September 24, 2020

Like any other Thursday, we began our class with a quiz on the reading, which was Philoctetes. We took a look at our “Chalkboard for Ideas” document to review the 8 Pillars of Caste according to Isabel Wilkerson; These 8 Pillars are (1) Divine Will and the Laws of Nature, (2) Heritability, (3) Endogamy and the Control of Marriage and Mating, (4) Purity vs Pollution, (5) Occupational Hierarchy, (6) Dehumanization and Stigma, (7) Terror as Enforcement, Cruelty as a Means of Control, and (8) Inherent Superiority vs Inherent Inferiority. One specifically stands out in relation to Philoctetes, can you guess which? Surprise, (6) Dehumanization and Stigma; Although other pillars can relate to the story as well, I’d like to focus on this one. Philoctetes was dehumanized through the 5 scenarios we learned about; He was left on the island of Lemnos by Odysseus because he had been bit by a serpent. This bite is what caused him to be dehumanized through physical disgust. Another reason he was dehumanized was because others felt they had a sense of power over him. I chose to point out this pillar in particular because dehumanization was a main aspect of Philoctetes. We also spoke about how class can change, but caste cannot. Caste is heritable, you either have it or you don’t. It’s difficult to change the way others view you when it comes to caste, in other words, it’s difficult for them to look at you as more than just your caste. This will cause them to have pre biased opinions on who you are, which shouldn’t be dependent on your position in a system that you had no part of. It takes a lot to be seen in a caste different from the one assigned to you at birth. Change in class, on the other hand, is often more accessible. Dependent on where you live (cost of living), how much money you make, your connections, etc, your class can be determined. These factors are often controlled by you, but there are factors that we cannot control or that cause us to stay within one class. A big factor in this sense is race; Many people are denied opportunities due to their race, which they cannot change (aside from the fact that you shouldn’t be denied basic human opportunity because of your race). Another factor, as strange as it is, is class. Many people are, to reflect back on past topics, denied their agency and experience dependent on their class. How are you expected to switch between different classes if the one you are currently in is what is constraining you? This is a topic discussed by many, but it’s often why the rich are rich and the poor are poor, without being granted opportunities for change.

Another document we looked at was “Leadership as Eliminating Dehumanization,” where the assignment was to think about “opportunities we have to eliminate dehumanization and maximize everyone’s potential through the following means.” My group chose the Political topic and specifically spoke about the Black Lives Matter Movement. Speaking on this movement specifically, we know that Black people are being dehumanized and we felt that there are limited amounts of opportunities in order to eliminate this dehumanization. Our system was built against minorities, meaning we must change the system in order for this dehumanization to be eliminated. One way we can attempt to make this change is by having POC who believe we need change in these political leadership positions. A hope would be for the government to change or add certain policies that can increase humanization amongst POC, whether these policies be about job discrimination, housing/neighborhood discrimination, police brutality, etc. Protesting, using our voice, and having minorities in power are ways to maximize the potential that our voice is heard. Another way in which we can take initiative is by going to people of power to create change within our communities. Share your ideas with someone who can directly make this change or has direct influence over what you wish to be changed. Although we’ve made progress, look at where we are today. It seems as if we made a leap and are now taking many steps backwards. We must be persistent, use our voices, and assure that real change can be made.

Sunday: September 27, 2020

Today, I began Kallion Chapter 6: Spotting the Bad Mentee in Jorge Luis Borges’ “El Muerto,” Parts 1–5. The first couple parts were an introduction to the lesson, but Part 3 (Translating Leadership Study Into Practice) provided us with a specific task. We were to create a list of questions based on the character traits of Benjamin Otalara; These questions were created with the intention of deciding whether or not to bring this kind of person into our community, if we were in a leadership role. I came up with 5 different sets of questions that I believe would be helpful in determining this: (1) P3→ Is this person willing to nonviolently communicate with their opponent or even bring harmony to both sides? Would this person be able to easily flee their team or flee from leadership? (2) P11–12→ Is this person able to reject selfishness and help those around them? (3) P16→ Is this person able to see more than physical looks in others? Is this person unable to take direction from someone just because of the way they look? (4) P24→ Is this person willing to form bonds with others for reasons more than personal gain? Is this person interested in forming any real, lasting relationships or do they solely want power, no matter what it takes? (5) P30→ Is this person able to be humbled by realizing that they never had genuine power, it was all an act? I believe that with these questions, you are able to find out a lot about a person, as well as whether or not they would be a good fit in your community.

Monday: September 28, 2020

Today I completed the remaining parts of Chapter 6, Parts 6–8. I found these sections quite interesting because, when reading the story, the thought never crossed my mind that Otalara may have Antisocial Personality Disorder. I thought about the fact that he’s narcissistic, but never even thought about the other. So, does Otalara meet the criteria of narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition definitions of the two? I think it’s safe to say he does, beginning with narcissistic personality disorder. Based on examples found in the story, Otalara (1) Has a grandiose sense of self-importance, (2) Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love, (3) Believes that he is ‘special’ and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people, (5) Has a sense of entitlement, (7) Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others, (8) Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him, and (9) Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes. Otalara was envious of Bandeira, he craved his power and often fantasized his life of power. He, as an Argentinian, believed that he was better than all of the Uruguayans combined. He debated killing Bandeira while he was sick, lying in bed. Otalara, in my opinion, proves throughout the whole story that he is a narcissist. Next, here are a few of the criteria for antisocial personality disorder that I believe he meets. (1) Deceitful, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure, (2) Impulsive or fails to plan ahead, (3) Irritable and aggressive, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults, he has a (4) Reckless disregard for safety of self or others, and a (5) Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another. Otalara adores violence, he saw a fight between 2 men and was enthused without favoring a side or without knowing the men involved. He just loved watching the fight, it enthused him. He thought to kill Bandeira on impulse and he would have done so, had the women not walked into the room. He has no remorse; “The death of his adversary does not bother him at all” (El Muerto, Paragraph 3). I’m not sure how someone would deem otherwise, but based on this story I believe that Otalara has narcissistic personality disorder, as well as antisocial personality disorder.

Tuesday: September 29, 2020

We began to discuss “El Muerto” as a class and we worked on a document aimed to make non-obvious comparisons/contrasts between the characters in “El Muerto” and any of the following characters we have studied. One comparison that I had not thought about was made by Group 6. This comparison was that both Suarez (bodyguard of Bandeira) and Neoptolemus (son of Achilles, soon to be friend of Philoctetes) were sent to carry out a plan. Suarez was sent by Bandeira and he was the one who ended up killing Otalara. Neoptolemus was sent by Odysseus to retrieve Philoctetes and his bow, bringing them back to Troy. A further contrast that I thought about through this comparison was that Suarez didn’t betray the one who sent him, meaning he carried out the plan, whereas Neoptolemus betrayed Odysseus by not carrying out the plan, as well as by befriending Philoctetes and calling out Odysseus when he made it clear that he would no longer follow through with the plan. My group, Group 10, made the following 3 comparisons/contrasts for this assignment: (1) Otalara and Odysseus are both narcissistic and feel entitled. Although they are both hard working, I believe that had an unnecessary feeling of entitlement. (2) Binti did many things for others, she was rather selfless, especially in comparison to Otalara, who was rather selfish. Otalara had absolutely no intention of helping others, whereas Binti’s title was that of a person who can bring 2 sides together, helping others. (3) Both Otalara and Neoptolemus wanted to prove themselves, but the difference is that Otalara attempted to prove himself at the expense of others, whereas Neoptolemus did not attempt to prove himself at the expense of others. As a matter of fact, we see that Neoptolemus no longer wanted to prove himself to Odysseus when he realized the dehumanization and harm he was putting unto Philoctetes. This action, holding back when you realize you’re in the wrong or putting others at a negative expense, is not something that Otalara would ever do (based off of what we’ve seen of him so far). Although “El Muerto” was a somewhat random story in my eyes, jumping from scenario to scenario, it was interesting to compare these characters to others that we’ve seen in our past studies.