People’s perceptions of themselves and how they think others perceive them influence their actions. This theme is evident in The Death of Benny Paret, Shooting an Elephant, and On Dumpster Diving, but in different ways in each piece. Once people know who they are and are comfortable with themselves, they have reached self-actualization. In The Death of Benny Paret, the crowd and even Paret himself viewed Paret to be better than he actually was. This could potentially be the true cause of his death. Paret had won welterweight champion, which fueled his ego even more. In his mind, he was invincible. Because of this increase in ego, Paret’s self-concept was inaccurate. He was too proud, which led to his downfall. The author of The Death …show more content…
This is similar to Benny Paret’s situation because both of the men’s perceptions of themselves were manipulated by others, which led to a negative event. Shooting an Elephant starts out with, “...I was hated by large numbers of people-- the only time in my life that I have been important enough for this to happen to me,” (SOURCE #). The man had obviously heard negative comments about him in order to know this, which contributed to his negative self-concept and him not being very confident in himself. An elephant was loose in the village, and the man had the responsibility of going and surveying the situation. Therefore, the natives followed him to see what he would do. Because the elephant had killed a native, the man sent for a gun for security. The man, who was the author, wrote, “I had no intention of shooting the elephant-- I had merely sent for the rifle to defend myself if necessary…” (SOURCE #). However, as time went on and the man perceived more pressure from the natives, the man began to change his mind, “I had got to shoot the elephant. I had committed myself to doing it when I sent for the rifle… To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at my heels, and then to trail feebly away, having done nothing-- no that is impossible. The crowd would laugh at me,” (SOURCE #). …show more content…
Unlike the two previous instances, this man had a strong and accurate self-concept. As a result, he was able to do what he needed to do without worrying about his image. Therefore, this man had reached self-actualization. He had been homeless and had to live off of dumpster diving, which led him to write this piece with a matter-of-fact tone, almost as if he was writing a “how to” on dumpster diving. The man had no shame in what he had to do to survive. Moreover, he described the stages a dumpster diver goes through, and he, in a way, threw a bit of shame on the beginners who are disgusted with what they find because they think they are too good for dumpster diving. The author wrote, “At first the new scavenger is filled with disgust and self-loathing… Everything seems to stink. He can wipe the egg yolk off the found can, but he cannot erase from his mind the stigma of eating garbage… He begins to understand: People throw away perfectly good stuff, a lot of perfectly good stuff,” (SOURCE #). The author did not care what others thought about him not because he was trashy, but because he was confident in who he truly was. He was an intelligent and reasonable human being who knew what needed to be done and was not embarrassed to do it.
He starts by giving a lot of personal examples (Pizza shop example), then talks about other people who try it (The stages of beginning to dumpster dive), and explains how dumpster diving is a lot better than the more accepted picking up of cans (comparison to a wino). He then delves into the ethics behind dumpster diving (looking at prescription bottles and such), and then if one, presumably the reader, wanted to try it how they would do so (pole with hook on it). He ends with some deep insights into dumpster diving and his way of life. I think that the way he organizes his essay, and his overall tone, are to convince the reader that dumpster diving is not as bad as everyone things, and to make people actually interested in trying it. He first
Through the essay, "Dumpster Diving," Eighner impresses his superiority by illustrating disinterested people and their lack to complete certain tasks the author is skillful at.
Throughout the whole essay, Mailer interspersed various stylistic devices ranging from diction to syntax in order to give the reader an overall melancholy mood to reflect how he felt that day when he witnessed Paret die. Since he had utilized these stylistic devices, he had engendered potency for his passage as a whole and he had reinforced the mood throughout the passage with efficacy. More importantly, from this passage, Mailer wanted the reader to remember the significance of Benny Paret and the fact that surprises lurk in every corner of life.
From society to family to media, external influences never seem to disappear from everyday life. These outward forces tend to leave a lasting impression on us for as long as we live. Because they are so prevalent in our daily lives, exterior factors will have a significant influence on us, specifically our sense of self and happiness. When defining our sense of self, it eventually comes down to how we interpret our individual self-image. In most cases, we do not truly know who we are from our own mindset. Therefore, we take into account the reactions that those around us have an influence on our actions and decisions. From these external effects, we create the persona of who we are. In his article, Immune to Reality, Daniel Gilbert explains
In the article “On Dumpster Diving, Lars Eighner writes about his experiences dumpster diving and the knowledge needed to “scavenge” (as Eighner says) successfully. Because of the stigma attached to dumpster diving, the article grabs your attention. Once you begin reading, you realize the article covers many more talking points than just dumpster diving.
George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” is a short story that not only shows cultural divides and how they affect our actions, but also how that cultural prejudice may also affect other parties, even if, in this story, that other party may only be an elephant. Orwell shows the play for power between the Burmese and the narrator, a white British police-officer. It shows the severe prejudice between the British who had claimed Burma, and the Burmese who held a deep resentment of the British occupation. Three messages, or three themes, from Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” are prejudice, cultural divide, and power.
“The Death of Benny Paret” is a invoking article that allows the reader to be surprised, sad, and makes the reader somewhat think about how it felt to be Benny Paret. It gives an inside look on what being a boxer takes.The author, Norman Mailer, uses diction, detail, and imagery to describe the death of Paret. Paret was a “welterweight champion”, which in layman’s term just means he was a boxer. Throughout the article Norman Mailer mainly uses details to help give the reader an image of Paret’s death.
A police officer in the British Raj, the supposedly 'unbreakable'; ruling force, was afraid. With his gun aimed at a elephant's head, he was faced with the decision to pull the trigger. That officer was George Orwell, and he writes about his experience in his short story, 'Shooting an Elephant';. To save face, he shrugged it off as his desire to 'avoid looking the fool'; (George Orwell, 283). In truth, the atmosphere of fear and pressure overwhelmed him. His inner struggle over the guilt of being involved in the subjugation of a people added to this strain, and he made a decision he would later regret enough to write this story.
He felt ashamed because his entire purpose for shooting the elephant was to avoid scrutiny by those who were not fond of him anyway. The author’s need for validation overruled his greater nature. This caused me to ponder the entire decision making process. Why do we make the decisions we make and do we always take into consideration how we will feel afterwards? The same concept applies to the things we say when we are in arguments. Morally, we are aware that we should not say certain things because they will harm the other person however, we choose to say them anyway in an attempt to preserve our own egos. This basically entails that the battle is not between what is right and what is wrong but what we know is wrong and whether or not we should complete the action anyway. This journal assignment in particular providing a chance for me to single out one article that I remembered despite all of the other journal entries we have completed. This indicated that this particular essay was particularly interesting and enabled me to actually think outside of the box when breaking down stories and understanding
Orwell, George. "Shooting an Elephant." Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. 9th ed. Vol. F. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. 2605-610. Print.
There are two examples in the text “Shooting An Elephant,” where the protagonist Eric A. Blair’s role as an oppressor changed into the oppressed. Due to life complications, he is forced to join the tyrannical Imperial civil services. The tasks given to him with his place as an officer led people to view him as an oppressor. As Eric states his perception,“I was hated by large numbers of people...The wretched prisoner huddling in the stinking cages of the lock-ups, the gray, cowed faces of the long-term convicts the scarred buttocks of the men who had been flogged with bamboos…” Eric is contradicted by his own consciousness, supporting the Burmese, but being a part of their oppressors. His guilt does not allow him to feel free, therefore leading
George Orwell was born in India and was educated in England. Later he joined the Imperial Police in Burma were he traveled to countries. All throw out his life he wrote about difficult situations that had ordinary incites. In 1984 he died but his lifelong commitment was as relevant as ever. In the story “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell there are 3 messages that in some way or another has to deal with peer pressure.
There are so many reason why poaching is a concern, so I am going to come up with idea to stop the poaching. Poaching is a vast and continuous thing that happen everywhere, but m prime concern is the poaching of elephants. We could put more sanctuaries in Africa and other places, poaching hurts the elephant population. So we need to protect the elephants that are left, and what can we do to help the baby orphaned elephants put more sanctuaries in africa and other places.
What is really important to you; that keeps you safe, that protects you? What if that was taken away from you forever? If we as humans, for example, didn’t have our teeth and were to try to live without them in the wilderness, we would likely not survive. This is what happens to animals in our world when their tools for survival are taken from them by poachers.
Morally, I think this story clearly states that people would do anything to avoid being embarrassed. From my understanding, I think that this story teaches us that we should be open to hear people?s opinions but we should follow our instincts. We should not allow others to make the decisions for us. The police officers just shoot the elephant because people wanted him to do so. This essay is trying to help us to see that we should look at the pros and cons of an issue rather than making a quick decision that can affect someone. I cannot condemn the author for shooting the elephant, though he knew it was wrong. Nor can I condemn him for giving in to the natives and not sticking to his guns. He does not want to appear foolish to others like all of us do.