Ideological and Repressive State Apparatuses works together

Ideological and Repressive State Apparatuses

06.12.2014-Meryem Rabia Tasbilek

            Ideological and Repressive State Apparatuses works together. The state power creates different synthesis from them in different times. In my opinion, Repressive State Apparatus is the sub-tool of Ideological State apparatuses. Althusser argues that “I shall say rather that every state apparatus, whether repressive or ideological, ‘functions’ both by violence and by ideology, but with one very important distinction which makes it imperative not to confuse the Ideological State Apparatuses with Repressive State Apparatus.”[1] For him, the distinction was the massive and predominantly the use of violence by the Repressive State Apparatus. On the other hand, according to him ideology uses these tools secondarily. In the next several pages, I will create some synthesis about his argument and my observation about these two types of State Apparatuses and try to enrich my argument by more specific examples and arguments from Patricia Daley, Angela Davis, and Michel Foucault critiques.

            First of all, even though I find Althusser's argument very useful and intellectual, I need to confess that I had hard time to understand why he pays this much attention to separate these Apparatuses. At one point, I agree with him about the necessity of having more specific notions for each problems of the system. On the other hand, it seems like when we separate the Ideological State Apparatuses from the Repressive one, for some people this may create a misunderstanding and/or ignorance about the repression of the ideologies. I might be wrong about this, but are the ideologies and Ideological State Apparatuses really using the violence secondarily? In my opinion, their whole existences are pure violence, especially, because the ideologies and Ideological State Apparatuses do not leave any space for us to live outside of them. This is the highest level of violence against our existences. As Althusser argues, “there is no practice except by and in an ideology. There is no ideology except by the subject and for subjects.”[2] When we think that we gained some free spaces or had some freedom that was cut off from the system, it is only an alteration of the system and a new form of the current Ideological State Apparatus. It seems like the system, the State gives us a kind of hush money by altering the style of Repressive State Apparatuses. This “change” creates an illusion and makes us think that with this alteration Ideological State Apparatuses or the dominant ideology is also changed. The appearances of them seem less violence. I believe that this is similar with Foucault’s argument about new types of punishments and prison systems. Foucault emphasizes that “what they were attacking in traditional justice, before they set out the principles of a new penalty, was certainly the excessive nature of the punishments, but an excess that was bound up with an irregularity even more than with an abuse of the power to punish.”[3]

            Moreover, it seems like the relation between Repression and Ideology is circular. They reproduce each other and secure each other and more than that they make the existence and the stability of the State possible by their cooperation. It seems like another Althusser’s argument fits that place very well to support my argument about the nature and function of these two Apparatuses. Althusser argues that “the state, which is the state of the ruling class, is neither public nor private; on the contrary; it is the precondition for any distinction between public and private… It is unimportant whether it is institutions in which they are realized are public or private. What matters is how they function.”[4] In my opinion, it is same for different types of apparatuses, too, whether it is ideological or repressive the apparatuses, they are both violent. However, we may make a kind of reverse statement about the apparatuses by saying that they are pre and after conditions for the system, for the dominant ideology. The state needs them to exist and continue to exist. I think, Althusser’s this statement also support my argument: “To my knowledge, no class can hold state power a long period without at the same time exercising its hegemony over and in the Ideological State Apparatus.”[5] And he continues, “Ruling ideology that ensures a ‘harmony’ between the Repressive State Apparatus and the Ideological State Apparatuses and between the different Ideological State Apparatus.”[6] We may link this argument with Delay’s argument that emphasizes “the language of genocide is used instrumentally by each ethnic group and by different parties. Genocidal violence became further institutionalized with the realization by military officers and politicians that it could be used to gain political advantage without international sanctions.”[7] It is clear that in this example, we become witness the collective work of Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses and how the dominant groups in the society manipulates them based on new social conditions.

            If I link these arguments with the prison industry complex and Davis’ arguments, first of all I think we need to talk about the impact of Ideological State Apparatuses such as school; media etc. which make people accept and internalize the practices of Repressive State Apparatuses, especially in the prisons and about the prisons and prisoners. As Althusser mentions that “ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence,” [8] Davis also argues that “the prison is present in our lives and, at the same time, it is absent from our lives.”[9] The state and the dominant power make us to believe that we are aware of the conditions and the function of the prison system and also other types of repressive state apparatuses. Of course, this is an illusion! To fulfill this goal, the state uses countless types of apparatuses from ideological and repressive types. In my opinion, if we stick with Althusser's dualistic argument, the system uses ideological state apparatuses more, because it is more useful to hide the real motivations behind it. Also, it is everywhere in the society like air.

            When the state masses its hands, it gets more aggressive and uses more visual and physical violence. The extreme use of repressive state apparatuses does not mean to stop using the ideological apparatuses. Foucault supports my argument by saying that “one has only to point out so many precautions to realize that capital punishment remains fundamentally, even today, a spectacle that must actually by forbidden.”[10] In my opinion, we can link the fake progress and the switch between ideological and repression types of the state apparatus by the help of Foucault’s another argument: “Crime became less violent long before punishment became less severe.”[11] Also, similarly Davis argues that “the long-running HBO program Oz has managed to persuade many viewers that they know exactly what goes on in male maximum-security prisons.”[12] For these types of people, Ideological State Apparatuses are enough. However, if they do not internalize these delusional realities and decide to riot for change or abolish the prison than the Repressive State Apparatuses are ready for them. Probably, in the society even people who experience particular types of repression from the system can rationalize his or her violent experiences especially by the force of ideological state apparatuses. For instance, Davis mentions that “people wanted to believe that prisons would not only reduce crime, they would also provide jobs and stimulate economic development in out-of-the-way places.”[13] The Ideological State Apparatuses makes people rationalize the violence of the Repressive State Apparatuses even in the prisons. As Althusser argues, “the essential point is that on condition that we interpret the imaginary transposition and inversion of ideology we arrive at the conclusion that in ideology ‘men represent their real conditions of existence to themselves in an imaginary form.”[14] For the same reason, I believe that we have hard time to improve our imaginary to produce new and different types of resistance. As Davis suggests, we need to get rid of the dualistic solutions against the current system. Our minds have been forced to see the situation as prison industry complex or society with full of criminals. We need to break the rigid cycle of the systematic oppression of the state and its various apparatus. She emphasizes this clearly by saying that “the first step, then, would be to let go of the desire to discover one single alternative system of punishment that would occupy the same footprint as the prison system.”[15]

            Ultimately, if we link all of these arguments and try to produce something against the collective oppression of Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses, in my opinion we may receive some intellectual help from Lugones. The way ideology reach every point of our lives and society, it seems like the resistance and critique of it should cover all sides of our lives and society, too, if we really want to create some changes. As she argues “this is clear when we understand that resistant sense cannot reside in “the individual” as the institutional backing that makes possible the appearance of individuality, is absent.”[16] It is clear that either Repression or Ideology of the state is not individual. For this reason, our resistance should be the same way to reach some meaningful and effective solutions. As Foucault emphasizes “the public execution is to be understood not only as a judicial, but also as a political ritual. It belongs, even in minor cases, to the ceremonies by which the power is manifested.”[17] People who resist against this dominant power and its various apparatuses, we need to find our own authentic and collective manifestations.

[1] Althusser, Louis. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. Appendix 2. Trans. Ben Brewster. Lenin and Philosophy and other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971. Pg. 303.
[2] Althusser. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” Pg. 323.
[3] Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books, 1979. Pg. 78.
[4] Althusser. IISSA. Pg. 302, 303.
[5] Althusser. IISSA. Pg. 304.
[6] Althusser. IISSA. Pg. 306.
[7] Delay, Patricia. “The Masculinized Stat and the History of Genocide.” Pg. 77.
[8] Althusser. IISSA. Pg. 317.
[9] Davis, Y. Angela. Are Prisons Absolute? New York: Seven Stories Press. 2003. Pg. 15.
[10] Foucault. Discipline and Punish. Pg. 15.
[11] Foucault. DP. Pg. 76.
[12] Davis. Are Prisons Absolute? Pg. 18.
[13] Davis. APA? Pg. 15.
[14] Althusser. IISSA. Pg. 318.
[15] Davis. APA? Pg. 106.
[16] Lugones, Maria. Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc. 2003. Pg. 218.
[17] Foucault. DP. Pg. 47.

The Importance of being Made of Glass-Meryem Rabia Tasbilek

                       

In this paper, I will argue the importance of living like a person who is made of glass by the support of Nietzsche's aphorisms from The Gay Science, book three. Nietzsche argues about different types of danger and advantages of being a person made of glass.[1] I will build some arguments on this idea and metaphor. I will also argue the importance of errors and the problems of morality. In addition, I will create some arguments about prayers which differ from Nietzsche’s aphorisms.

You have no idea what you are experiencing; you run through life as if you were drunk and once in a while fall down a staircase. But thanks to your drunkenness, you don’t break your libs in the process; your muscles are too slack and your head too dull for you to find the stones of these stairs as hard as the rest of us do! For us, life is a greater danger: we are made of glass- woe unto us if we bump against something! And everything is lost if we fall! (Book Three 132, 133)

When I read this section, I thought that who are these two types of people for Nietzsche and for me? Nietzsche probably includes people to the drunken group who postpone today for the sake of optimistic tomorrow and also who believe afterlife. I believe that what we believe creates our social profiles, but what we believe and how we believe creates our characters. For this reason, the believers of afterlife in different ways can be excluded from this drunken categories based on their perspectives and unique practices, but definitely not the people who have optimism obesity. For instance, I do not do something for the motivation of heaven or scariness of God or hell.  I believe that these are necessary metaphors to educate human soul until it became mature. A child can expect some award for his or her good behavior and can stop himself or herself from some behavior because of some punishment, but if this child expect benefit or punishment to take or avoid actions when he or she grows up, we find something problematic about them. For human soul and character, I think the religious metaphors function similarly. However, after reaching a level of maturity, I believe that doing or not doing something for its benefits or harms, but not for the action itself is not ethical. For this reason, I think every person can switch his or her drunkenness to an active, fragile existence which is metaphorically equal to be a person made of glass. On this way, I think we do not have any luxury to look down to any drunkenness experience. All types of intoxication can be a stairway to reach this kind of active existence.

If I can go back to the notion of being a man made of glass, this must be our ideal position in our lives. I believe that being a person made of glass is equal to be active and probably in Nietzsche's argument being an evil. If we can manage to be an individual who is made of glass, we can stay awake and with this awareness we also can accept other people and all beings as made of glass, fragile. By this way, our interactions with people and all nature can become sensitive, active to not become lost and broken.  We can manage to not destroy the other’s existence. This perspective of existence creates an active awareness. Moreover, by this way we can get rid of the danger of “vegetarians’ or dieters’” narcotic ways of thinking to avoid the dangers of the staircases of life.[2]  

In addition, I believe that if we really consider ourselves as “made of glass,” this perception alters our goals and motivations, too. This awareness is powerful enough to make us get rid of our desire to become a function and an instrument for others. This motivation and practices of altruism which makes human addicted to use others as instruments rather than trying to manage self-actualization. A wild flower does not need any one to support its existence to produce beauty, actually it becomes a beauty. If there is a link between its existence and other natures, it is higher than using them as an instrument, it is an active relationship. If we manage to be a person made of glass, this can save us from parasitic lives. I think this way of living produce naturally active things that are more valuable than being instruments. We need pessimism, fragility for a self-actualization.  As Nietzsche argues: “I recognize the spirits who seek rest by the many dark objects with which they surround themselves: he who wants to sleep makes his room dark or crawls into a cave.-A hint to those do not know, but would like to know, what they actually seek most!” I believe that this darkness is also equal to pessimism. To become ourselves actively, we need darkness and fragility.

Moreover, Nietzsche argues that “Prayer has been invented for people who never really have thoughts of their own… The wisdom of all founders of religions, small as well great, has prescribed to them the formulas of prayer as a long mechanical work of lips, combined with exertion of the memory and a same fixed posture of hands and feet and eyes!”[3] I believe that this argument has a great generalization that makes it weak. I agree with Nietzsche’s argument at some point, because many traditional prayers become habits in many religions. The traditional prayers are mostly ritualistic. Step by step they lose their core and the only thing left for the believers are the empty shells of the rituals. Mostly, these prayers passivize people and create barriers between them and today’s responsibilities. They make them postpone the action and only lean to the power of God or other kinds of mystic powers. On the other hand, this is not always the case. I know a lot of people who change their verbal prayers and their physical positions or quit praying time to time just not to lose the meaning of it by getting used to it. For these people, prayers are the reminders of the face of active life. They do not beg for help, they just communicate and argue or fight intellectually with the God that they believe. Their prayers are also equal to questioning. For instance, I quit ritualistic prayers for a while, but I only accept active behaviors, taking positions in front of different situations as prayers. Not only these, but also producing questions and seeking answers are prayers for me. Also in Protestant life, working is a way of praying even though nowadays this idea becomes a tool or trigger for Capitalism. Nietzsche may argue that this type of working also equal to become an instruments for others, but I think we cannot monopolize all the Protestants’ interpretation of this acceptance as passive.

In addition, in some theologies, for instance in Islam, if a person find something unpleasant and harmful for humanity and for the individual, the verbal prayer is only a reminder for the behavioral prayer. There is an advice from Prophet Muhammad: “If you see any injustice, try to correct it with your hands, if you cannot fix it with your actions, and then try to fix it with a good language. If you cannot manage to stop it by these two ways, then feel displeasure in your heart to not get used to it, this is the weakest point of believing.”[4] According to Nietzsche, the evil is the active one more than the good, but I think there are active goods, too. I think, religious expression that I just shared is very similar with Nietzsche’s this argument: “Put on your armour for a hard fight, but believe in the miracles of your god!” [5] In my opinion, behavioral prayer is equal to this quote. Even though it is not the universal interpretation of the prayer, it is still common in my social environment. This is an intellectual call for action, unfortunately some people might understand and misinterpret Nietzsche same as some religious call for actions differently and violently.  I also believe that for some people, religion and prayers are the opiate of people, but what is not? It is related with people’s perspectives. Same as religion, ideologies or philosophy can be an opiate, too. For this reason, we need to pay attention to our own interpretations.

Moreover, we should not become a tool in the hand of religions, philosophy or any epistemic groups with our existence; they need to become staircases and tools to help us to continue our self-cultivation. At the end, I believe that our soul will leave all tools behind with respect and loyal feelings same as a bird that needs to leave the ground to fly. After one point, believing and refusing should not be different or matter. I will support this argument with a Religious Philosopher from Anatolia, Yunus Emre says that “I understood that being a believer or a faithless are covers on the way of life, and I hug blasphemy and release my beliefs to the wind. They are both the same.”[6] All of these differences are the social covers, but the core of our characters should be over these preferences. By this way, same as Nietzsche argues, we can avoid the herd instinct: “Where ever we encounter a morality, we find an evaluation and ranking of human drives and action. These evaluations and rankings are always the expression of needs of a community and herd… With morality the individual is instructed to be function of the herd and to ascribe value to himself only as function… Morality is a herd instinct in the individual.”[7] Nietzsche’s this argument is also parallel with the Anatolian Philosopher. To avoid being an instrument, we need to have a merciful distance with tradition and crowd’s common morality. These create hierarchy by using positive images of morality in our lives. They shape and whittle the differences of people’s characters. If we do something, we need to do it by the fruit of the action. On the other hand, I do not feel any complex if there are some overlaps between my personal choices and common preferences. I am also criticizing to put compulsive distance between ourselves and the crowd to not have any similarities with “herd.” For instance, even though Nietzsche emphasizes the importance and value of being active and “evil” in many places, he does not look down on all kinds of good, either. He argues that “who always wants to put people to shame”[8] is a bad person.  And also, he frames a person as most human who spares someone shame. I think he affirms this as the opposite of bad and it seems like he gives credits to the notion of good in this argument. To avoid of being a part of herd, having an allergy against morality, traditions and norms can also make us rootless. We need to use some of the commonness or the sources of herd same as Nietzsche. He uses the Greek Tragedy as a source of self-cultivation. As well as the sources of the society, we can use our errors as tools for our self-cultivation and as the sources of knowledge. Nietzsche argues that “Man has been educated by his errors.”[9] I definitely agree with him. We owe a lot to our errors. However, we need to not convert the knowledge or philosophy to an occupation or duty. Nietzsche argues that:

The intellectual fight became an occupation, attraction, profession, duty, dignity- knowledge and the striving for the true finally took their places as a need among the other needs. Henceforth, not only faith and conviction, but also scrutiny, denial, suspicion, and contradiction were a power; all ‘evil’ instincts were subordinated to knowledge and put in its service and took on the lustre of the permitted, honored, useful and finally the eye and the innocence of the good. (The Gay Science, 111)

            I believe that, these kinds of practices are passivizing the knowledge and us. Hopefully, our awareness of our existence as being made of glass can support us to menage our individual self-actualization and avoid of living passively as an instrument. Ultimately, in this paper, I argued the importance of living like a person who is made of glass by the support of Nietzsche's aphorisms from The Gay Science. I also argued the importance of errors and problems of morality. In addition, I created some arguments about prayers which differ from Nietzsche’s aphorisms at some point. As Nietzsche argues that “the thoughts cannot entirely reproduce in words.”[10] I did my best interpretations.  I tried to put the ideas together like a philosophical wagons, because “one is always wrong; but with two, truth begins.- One cannot prove his case, but two are already irrefutable.”[11]

---

[1] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, p 132,133.

[2] Nietzsche, The Gay Science (GS), p 128, 129. 

[3] Nietzsche, The Gay Science, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, p 122.

[4] Prophet Mohammed, Bukhari Hadith translated from Turkish version by me.

[5] Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, p 98.

[6] Yunus Emre, Translated from Turkish version by me.

[7] Nietzsche, The Gay Science (GS), p 114.

[8] Nietzsche, The Gay Science (GS), p 114, 152.

[9] Nietzsche, The Gay Science (GS), p 114, 115.

[10] Nietzsche, The Gay Science (GS), p 148.

[11] Nietzsche, The Gay Science (GS), p 150.

Commentary on Megan's Paper

Twilight of the Idols: “Morality as Anti-Nature
 Meryem Rabia Tasbilek

When I read Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols: “Morality as Anti-Nature” and our friend Megan’s analysis about it, these made me think deeper about the problem morality. I understand that Nietzsche criticizes moral person and morality too, but it seems like he finds moralists more problematic. I cannot think his Anti-Morality argument without this distinction when I synthesize these notions and arguments with my observations. It seems like being moralist is equal to feed an individual’s existence with measuring everyone with the scale of synthetic morality scale. I think Nietzsche was discussed from this human weakness.

                My friend Megan uses Nietzsche’s argument about Matthew 5:29 to emphasize the sharpness of moral rules and their possible violent faces. I think including religious books can give us some intellectual sources to alter anti-nature parts of morality even though mostly we use them to create anti-nature types of morality. They are all raw materials and we need to synthesize them with our wisdom of life and avoid them to be stable, but dynamic to make them active materials for our self-cultivations. If we use them actively, we can create some standpoints which is not anti-nature. Unfortunately, even the religions or philosophies that are intellectually or sometimes physically idol breakers became untouchable idols and their shadows are bigger than the ones they broke in the past.

I want to share one of my favorite parts from Matthew about hypocrites and religious leaders and moralists which support Nietzsche’s anger and critique against moralists. Even though, Nietzsche finds hypocrites valuable because this specialty needs strong character which is very rare in our modern societies. Unfortunately, we easily switch our paradigms when we came across with some resistance in the society:
                 Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. "What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are so careful to clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside you are filthy--full of greed and self-indulgence! Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. "What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs--beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people's bones and all sorts of impurity. Matthew 23:23-27

It seems like Nietzsche’s strong critiques about Morality is a reflection of this practices that were are able to read even in Matthew. My interpretation might be understood wrongly. I am not trying to link Nietzsche to Christianity directly. However, I insist that the anti-nature morality is mostly being moralists and trying to worship to morality rather than trying to use it as a natural tool in our lives. My friend Megan emphasizes the distinction between two types of morality in Nietzsche’s argument very well. “In section four, Nietzsche makes a significant distinction between natural and anti-natural morality. He argues that morality is healthy when it is natural and governed by one’s instincts.” Nietzsche also argues that “Morality is just a sign language, just a symptomatology; you have to know what it means in order to take advantage of it. He is against violating the nature by idealizing our moral rules and our norms which seems equal to put ourselves to the center of the existence and taking ourselves too seriously. By this way we objectify all the rest. From this perspective, Morality is anti-nature. We invent the meaning of morality and also fences of beauty and concept of purpose. This is problematic for Nietzsche.  

Megan also emphasizes Church’s problematic attack against the roots of passion. “The church attacks the very existence of the passions, and in doing so, Nietzsche argues, attacks life itself. It never asks: ‘how can a desire be spiritualized, beautified, deified?’” (172). Based on this perspective, attacking to passion functions together with morality and produce anti-nature side effects. It is like the human kind is cutting her own arteries. Megan also emphasizes that “in the second section of “Morality as Anti-Nature”, Nietzsche argues people who act aggressively hostile towards their passions do so because they are too weak of will to act moderately; hostility is the only way they can prevent themselves from acting rashly. In this way, the severe hostility of Christian doctrine toward passion is a symptom of a sickness of one who cannot act moderately.” When Megan links this to the spiritualization of hostilities in Christianity, it seems like a very good synthesis. Same as the people who can only manage to act moderately by attacking to their own passions, the societies who spiritualize their enemies owe their existence to their opponents. If they were able to produce enough power and character by themselves from their own roots, they would not need to spiritualize their enemies and try to invent more hostilities intellectually, religiously, militaristically. Megan argues that “It is a new way of thought which is quite different from the reasoning of the Church, which is not able to spiritualize its hostility because it has always endeavored to destroy its enemies.” At one point, I disagree with him, because in our post-modern world, yes we mostly destroy our enemies, but the concept of spiritualizing the enemy and hostilities are still very strong and function for the societies which cannot survive moderately by their own sources. Megan’s analyzes on Nietzsche’s argument about the importance of spiritualizing our inner enemies is very valuable. I believe that when the individual use this spiritualization in her inner world, she decreases these practices against external world. Megan underlines Nietzsche’s argument about the lack of strong will, the existence of laziness produce misinterpretation of ‘peacefulness of the soul’ which is not a good thing the way we want to see.

           My question for Megan is how we can have the knowledge to be able to separate natural and anti-natural morality? And, how we can improve our spiritualization of inner enemies based on Nietzsche's arguments? Do not we produce similar actions when we evaluate morality with our philosophical scales? This is a general question for all the audience: When we create an anti-morality perspective and start to measure and critique moral ones and morality, do not we become the twin of this anti-nature practices? Maybe we need to break all the scales and try to practice Nietzsche’s last part of Gay Science and say yes to morality and anti-morality at the same time from a distance to both sides. Megan uses a quotes from Nietzsche that says: “Which type of life is making value judgments here?—But I have already answered this: it is a judgment of a declining, weakened, exhausted, condemned life” (175). When we judge morality, do not we copy this argument and become weakened, too? I think we cannot change anti-nature morality by using anti-morality rhetorically. I thank to Megan for his paper which made me think about these arguments deeper.

Home Take Final Exam Second Part-Narrative Third

During this semester, in the class called Sociology of Education, we read many valuable and informative at the same time literally tasteful books. In this paper I will share some of my ideas about the books by giving some samples from the books and try to synthesize them with my own experiences, some parts of my educational autobiography. Addition to these I will try to use some information that we learned during the class from various articles and discussions to create a wider and academic perspective.

When I was Puerto Rican

In the book called “When I was Puerto Rican,” in my opinion the boldest idea behind the text was assimilation. At the end, we have learned that the main character who was also the author of the book was able to manage to be accepted by Harvard. It might seem like a success story, but in my opinion this part is heavily an example for Tokenistic fallacy. When I compare the author’s educational autobiography with mine, I feel a little angry about the contrast. Until, I kicked out from high school that I was studying because of the scarf ban, my GPA was 4.86. Right now, as an international student who learn English for a while ago, my Sociology major university GPA is so far 4.0, but I could not find any scholarship as an immigrant. I feel like invisible, unrecognized and unsupported from all sides from the academy, from the family and etc. Since the last semester, I am almost dropping out after all many struggles because of extreme tuition for international students. Also, this is not only about me, the book’s end is so rare for common people’s lives. In addition, the book help us a lot to improve our sociological imagination. The working conditions of Puerto Rican women, the society’s impressions and discriminations against women who work outside of their home, Capitalism and Imperialism issues were explained well. By many specific examples, we have opportunities to understand gender roles, structural violence and individual bigotries and how they work together in the society.  For instance, if the big companies were not abusing Puerto Rican’s economy, the main character and her family did not need to come to the U.S. to seek a better life. They could find these in their own countries without facing systematic assimilation and having homesickness here.

Overall, the book was very useful to learn many specific things about Puerto Rican culture and familism characters. It made me to understand how the neighborhood culture, working conditions, people’s reactions’ to working women, and educational system is different in Puerto Rico. In addition to this, the book’s language has some poetic taste in some parts which was also making the reading more joyful. After I finished reading the book, the first thing I remember from the chapters was something like: If you do not like their foods more than our foods, you will not forget your identity and your culture. This was the most impactful aspect of this book and it will escort my mind in the future and probably, I will give this sentence as an example to people and hopefully my students to explain assimilation and possible peaceful resistance against it.

The Long Shadow of Little Rock

Moreover, when I read the book “Lock Down” I was extremely surprised to learn that when the Elizabeth Eckford was entering the all-white school, she was not supposed to be alone and in the plan they were more people was going to enter that school to break that cruel oppression and bigotry against African Americans. At first, until the author forgot to inform her about the changed plan, I was surprised that if these protesters brave girls were nine why we all know only Elizabeth Eckford in Turkey as a symbol of this movement. She was one of my idol during our high school protests. I have created many flyers and protests signs that carried her name to emphasize that we are the blacks of Turkey. The book reminded me many personal sad stories. My friend and I and thousands of other students who were resisting the freedom limitations against scarf in public schools have been experiencing many kinds of mobbing, physical and psychological, systemic insult and torture. One of my friends whose name is Dilek lost one of her legs because of cruel police attacks while the students were waiting and protesting the scarf ban in front of the high school. The police made the trained dogs attacked to the students. My friend; Dilek was so frightened from dogs attacks and while she was trying to escape them, a car hit her and this caused her to lose her legs. But, who can frame this accident as a simple traffic accident! Unfortunately, her inhumane experience and also ours was not worthy to be published on the first pages of the newspaper, but only in a small place on the third page. After eight years later, I visited her in Bosnia where she moved to continue her educational life in dental school freely same as I have been doing it here. While we were praying, I remember her with taking off her prostheses leg and sat down on the floor. Our tragic social movements were not able to catch enough attention even when we went to the capital city of Turkey on bare foot from another city. This made me think that how selective news report and framing conflict with humanistic ethic. We study Elizabeth Eckford in some of our books, hopefully in the future the books and history will talk about us, too.

Moreover, when I read that Ms. Bates forgot to inform Elizabeth Eckford about the change of the plan after postponing to the early morning, I was so mad. How come a person can forgot this kind of thing and also I think she was so late to get out from her house for that kind of a day. I am thankful to her for many reasons that I learned from this book, but still these incidents made me amazed. Overall, I think one of the interesting parts from the book that I read was the steps of the integration process in the schools. We learned that the integration plan was like: First, the integration should begin at the senior high school level and then second, it should be started in the junior high school and finally it should be started in elementary schools. This made me think for a while about the possible reasons of this order. (p. 49) This specific order was official, but I think it is all problematic. Why, because if the political dominant power was too willing to have this integration quickly, I believe that they must have started from the elementary schools. The youngest children of the society were probably the less discriminative, less violent and less oppressive to the possible African American classmates. They could probably adjust to this new more humanistic way than high school students, so the steps of the integration could be easier and faster to spread out to the upper level of education. Based on my observation and critical thinking, I thought this part was very interesting in the book. I will seek more information about it.

In addition, in the book we had a lot of chance to understand the mentality of South of the country, the impact of racism and the bills of fighting back. I think, the title of the book tells a lot of things about Social Movements and Structural Violence in our societies. On little rock can create a lot of bigger racist acts like a stone creates spirals on the water, but at the same time fighting back to eliminate oppression are something that creates spirals, too. Throwing stone into Bates’ family's house has a symbolic meaning addition to its physical violence. However, Bates couples newspaper can be accepted as a peaceful reflection of this stone. We can create good spirals from hurtful stones that were thrown to us.

Lock Down

After reading the book called Lock Down, I thought that if we did not have this much labels, stereotypes that works same as the old Berlin Walls, the life could be better for all of us. I think, I will send this book to my prisoner pen pals with some of others. One of my pen pals told me at the beginning of our friendship that if I wanted to send her some books, I should not send that are related to teach the prisoners how to be a better person, how the black people struggle, etc. This made me think about her old experiences. I thought that she must be tired of lectures and societies, individual people’s virtue lessons.

In the book, I found Reeds’ dialog with Mr. Hooft very interesting. Mr. Hooft’s dialog or loud stereotypes very identical with many white people have learned cliches and labels. He was so sure about his  ideas about people of colors and all minorities, so he did not feel bad when he was too loud and say them to people’s face directly. He was the product of this sick society that shape people’s mind systematically to make them match with the mentality of dominant power. He was racist, classicist when he was speaking with Reeds. He was also enjoying to have more power compare to a child who has to live in Progress and cannot respond him as free as himself. However, he was talking about his situation similar to Reeds spontaneously. He was feeling like locked down in Evergreen. By this similarity and his experience about being a war captive in Japan when he was a child was helping them have some commonness and have empathy about each other. This made me to think that if we emphasize our commonness more than our differences, we can have more friendly society than today.

In addition, I realized that dialog can be an antidote for many poisonous racist, sexist, religious, ideological doctrines that society teaches us from the beginning of our lives. By touching to each other's lives and unique stories, we can alter our current realities. Moreover, when I was reading the last chapters, one of the court members was asking Reeds some questions about his final mentality after his punishment. The person told him that how come you grew up a family with a drag abuse and involves something similar. This made me really sad and mad. This is exactly a type of blaming the victim. There are a lot of fallacies that we need to alter. If a person has a bad environment because of individual and structural problems, their chance to make mistakes are more than others and when we need to deal with them we need to consider these as extenuating circumstances.

Muchacho

Ultimately, in all four books that I have read, I like the book called Muchacho the most because of its fluent, tasteful language and its many embedded small stories and hidden messages about various topics. I strongly understood the importance of the society’s support to make people reach a better future and choose their way in the life. I cannot imagine Eddie without the support of Beecher, female police officer, Lupe, his mother and all other role models like his uncle and book cafe members and so forth. We have lack of good, intellectual role models to shape our goals in the society. Pop culture and capitalistic mechanism, television gave us many unhealthy ideas about ourselves and our future plans.

In addition, the book made me to think that a lot of people who manage to avoid partially the bad impacts of the society can still have hard time to find good models for themselves. In this situation, we need to increase people and especially young people’s chance to reach the books that can change their missions and visions. Teachers and schooling system need to create better environments, lighting systems, etc. to make reading more joyful. We need to alter the image of the book lovers in the student environment.

Moreover, Eddie’s birthday gift for her mother was so unique. This gift became a symbolic foundation for him to do better than his regular actions. In addition, the image of Eddie’s mother was so sad and at the same time still powerful. If she did not put Eddie’s promise on the refrigerator, Eddie could be more passive to reach her goals about education. When Eddie’s uncle talked about his mother’s younger times, Eddie was remembering some silent moments of her in their house. This reminded me my mother. I remember my mother as person who was in a place (home) that she does not feel she belongs to. She wanted to be a doctor, but because of the scarf ban in Turkey she became a housewife. Her image made me work harder to reach my goals and places that I feel attached and do something that I love. In Eddie’s mother case, it was her marriage that passivized her. She could continue her education, but familism, social codes about married women and probably the mentality of her husband created barriers for her. We came across these kinds of samples of gender issues in the book a lot when we read about people reactions against intelligent and hard worker Lupe. Eddie’s friends were criticizing her for not fitting to the common female image. They were also criticizing Eddie to accept this misfit lady as a girlfriend. These parts were very useful to analyze the society’s reactions and norms about gender roles.

I think one of my favorite parts of the book was the sentence about the borders, the mentality about labeling all Latinos as undocumented. Eddie was saying that they did not pass the border, but the border crossed us. If we give chance to people, they can change our perspective sometimes very quickly with these kinds of unique explanations.

In addition, in page 82, the sentences about people’s reactions against different Gods who do not speak English were very meaningful and deserve to catch a lot of attention. The metaphor for Gods who speak English or others and double standards for their followers were very unique. At the end, I am glad that Eddie found his own path by writing poems and improving his intellectual world by writing and reading. Overall, I love the book that gave us countless samples of social problems and unique explanations about them by many monologues.

Meryem Rabia Tasbilek