The Social Power of Expert Healers-Susan Douglas free essay sample

Essay on the subject of power and way of thinking with refrences to the essays titled ; Howard Brody ~ The Social Power of Expert Healers Susan Douglas ~ Narcissism as Liberation Greg Tate ~ I’m White! What’s wrong with Michael Jackson? and other* I want to focus on a way of thinking that I think needs constant revision. This way of thinking relies on unwavering belief in its own truth, to the exclusion of other ideas. For example, it is the way of thinking existing in all religions. All religions divide people into believers and non-believers. A religion assumes itself to be the truth and all others are false, this way of thinking is polarized, when it should be pluralistic since in reality everything is pluralistic, and polarized thinking eliminates plurality. When polarizing ways of thinking, it is always into two parts: Right and wrong, truths and lies or even honor and shame. We will write a custom essay sample on The Social Power of Expert Healers-Susan Douglas or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Polarizing serves the purpose of power. So, issues are always run down to two opposing poles. Polarized way of thinking is a form of power. There are many shades of power. Some are constructive powers and others are destructive. Destructive power can lead humanity towards oversimplification, racism, sexism, stereotype and bigotry. This type of thinking, this ‘power’ will ultimately lead to violence. Howard Brody says: â€Å"Power is almost impossible to share when one does not know that one has it, and does not know what one is doing with it†. Incomplete I say; Power cannot be fully shared except for the good of all. That is what sharing is all about. Financial power is an example. Being rich is power. Since that power is supposed to be shared, the rich must give to the poor. All forms or power are shareable but only when it’s for the good of all. And since that a way of thinking is a form of power, it is also shareable. In the movie â€Å"A Beautiful Mind† Russell Crowe’s character, John Nash, disagrees with Adam Smith’s Theory. That in rugged individualism, competition is needed. Individualism being a term used to describe a moral, political, or social outlook that stresses human independence and the importance of individual self-reliance and liberty. Individualists promote the exercise of individual goals and desires. However, John Nash states that what is needed is not competition but cooperation. That one must act according to what is best for oneself and the group. I agree with him. And I think what he suggests should be used with power. Susan Douglas says: â€Å"women’s liberation metamorphosed with female narcissism unchained as political concepts and goal like liberation and equality were collapsed into distinctly personal private desires†¦Liberation became equated with women’s ability to do whatever they want, whenever and at whatever expense. † Women have always refused being dominated by men. A liberated woman once was an independent woman: a woman who proves capability of doing anything without relying on anyone. Nowadays, according to Douglas narcissism became the answer. And narcissism leads t vanity, which is the complete opposite of what humanity needs. Humanity needs humility. Because a narcissistic person is a selfish person, sharing becomes impossible. In the movie â€Å"Instinct† starring Anthony Hopkins and Cuba Gooding Jr. , they talk about the life of gorillas, how they all live together peacefully, sharing everything. They are considered givers and sharers. I think humans should do the same, because sharing might encourage peace. In the same movie, people are divided into ‘givers’ and ‘takers’. They address abusers of power as takers. When it comes to power, it is either the use for good or abuse. I think abuse of power is the opposite of sharing power. Abuse of power is described in Brody’s essay as ‘playing god’, that means: going beyond the power attached to the person’s role, beyond assisting those who seek the aid. I t also means to try to redesign the world, often by rewarding the good and punishing the bad. This is what I would call monopolizing power, regarding self superior to all others. It isn’t sharing, it is domination. Brody claims that power should be made ‘culturally visible’ so that experts can accept responsibility for the use of power with a realistic understanding of all facts. I agree that power should be made visible. I think that hidden power like commercials is an abusive power. Rabkin’s definition of abuse of power is the violation of one’s right of autonomy. Rabkin accused Dr Walsh of violating Mr. Baker’s right of autonomy, thus abusing the power granted to her as a physician. I agree with Brody that Dr Walsh was the one listening to the Bakers and supporting their decision. I also agree that the matter isn’t who is right or wrong. People have different ways of thinking, and you can look at the situations from different perspectives and point of views, but still be unable to make a fair judgment about who’s right or wrong. The power of media and commercials is similar to the power of hysicians in many ways. Both are powers that are majorly influential, both are powers that can make a change, good or bad. Media (commercials) does not only have the power to make viewers believe that they need an expensive system of 3-5 different creams to fight off acne, skin aging or wrinkles, they also have the power to make the viewers actually buy the products. Physicians (psychiatrists) make patients believe that their daily troubles could be solved by paying hundreds of dollars for endless appointments and blabbering. It could be helpful for some people but others admit that the more they consult the unhappier they get. Brody discusses peoples need for psychiatrist in their search for happiness and he considers it to be an ideology rather than a rational belief. I agree with him. Susan Douglas says: In commercials they say: â€Å"spread high priced products on your face instead of using cheap shit- Pond’s and Nivea. The need is to flatter the new woman. † The message is: You get what you pay for but you are treated as well as you treat yourself. I think this way commercials create the need, not meet the need. Douglas also says: They convince us that by using the products advertised we will get the acceptance from people surrounding us, especially men. They imply huge importance to that as if it means everything† What Susan says is certainly true. I have seen not only cosmetics commercials but also food commercials that carry the same message. There is a Yoplait yoghurt commercial that I have seen not a long while ago, where a woman spending her vacation on the beach is ashamed to walk out in public. She is wearing a bathing suit but desperately trying to hide her waist and thighs with an inflated rubber tube. She notices girls giggling at her, and then hides in a changing room. There she pulls out strawberry Yoplait yoghurt out of her bag and eats. Once she’s done eating, she steps out of the changing room feeling incredibly and captures the men’s attention, resulting in making the giggling girls jealous. This commercial I think gives a woman the idea that people’s notice is wanted especially men’s, and in order to get their attention one must look a certain look. The commercial promises this result by buying the product advertised. Douglas says: â€Å"What if every woman in America woke up tomorrow and simply decided that she was happy with the way she looked? She might exercise to keep herself healthy, and get some Vaseline extensive care from CVS to sooth her dry skin, but basically, that would be the extent of it. Think of the entire multibillion-dollar industries that would crumble. † That is a way of thinking Douglas declares as needed to be shared among women and considered by men. Her way of thinking, I would say is constructive thinking, constructive power. In my opinion, it’s definitely worth considering. When I read Greg Tate’s essay, my immediate reaction was a similar way of thinking. I developed a theory that Michael Jackson considered being white is better than black. I thought he changed his skin color because he believed being white, meant possessing more power somehow. I turned it into a racial matter. But then I looked at other celebrities like: Grace Jones, Rupaul and Marilyn Manson. Seeing these examples helped me understand Michael more. I began to think in a different way, what if someone wants to change his/her look? Even if it made him/her look abnormal or odd. Its ones right of autonomy. Just like the Baker’s case in Brody’s essay, they wished to be treated at their home and Michael Jackson wished to be white. Why does he have to be black anyways? Why can’t he be both black and white? I realized that I had a polarized way of thinking. I thought that what he did was wrong, but now I see it just as his right of autonomy. Autonomy is important, it is part of social power in that it offers people a way of testing and challenging the categories that make up what we think as of our social world.