Amy Chen, Period 6, 11/10/23

 Amy Chen, Period 6, 11/10/23

Modern Mythology 2024

Discuss your thoughts and feelings current topics around inequity, oppression, and/or power.

Inequity has always been prevalent in the world as there are so many injustices that can be fixed, but simply are not. Environmental inequities, where certain communities are disproportionately impacted by environmental and occupational hazards, such as Black and Hispanic communities being exposed to 50% more inhalable particles, which can cause a myriad of respiratory problems, than whites. Social inequity, affecting income, health care, education, and overall access to opportunities, caused by problems like gender and race inequality. Like women in the world still unable to freely access education and disparities in income between different groups of people doing the exact same work. 

I want to specifically focus on economic inequity and how wealth disparity affects healthcare. The exorbitant cost of healthcare in America has been an issue for a long time, with rising costs causing greater struggles for those who have to choose between medical necessities, and others such as food or rent. Those with the money and resources are able to access treatment, while those without will simply suffer, even when the solution is there. My sister, who has worked as a nurse, has witnessed this problem firsthand. She has seen patients equally sick and in need of the same services, with no beds open, yet one is able to create an opening with a phone call and the other cannot. Why is it that some people are neglected simply because of the wealth gap? Is someone’s life less valuable simply because they don’t hold the same amount of wealth and connections as someone else?

This problem is also exceptionally amplified by the existence of free healthcare available in the world, in countries like Canada and the UK. The means for fixing this problem clearly exists but nothing will be done about it, because those excessive medical bills generate profit for those board members running the hospitals. The rich get richer, while the lives of those at the bottom will only become increasingly difficult. Making healthcare free and accessible won’t generate any more profit than they are already making, and so those with the resources and power to fix this problem will simply do nothing as it does not stand to directly benefit them. 

How do you reflect critically on your own beliefs, assumptions, values, and experiences, and how these can influence your perception of self and others?

I grew up in a predominately Chinese community, raised by first generation Chinese immigrant parents. My parents both come from a small rural village in China, an entirely homogeneous place, with little to no diversity. When they moved to America, most of their social network still consisted of people just like themselves, other Chinese immigrants who still spoke the same dialect they did, sharing similar experiences and beliefs. They disliked anyone different from themselves, and fed into prejudice. People from other parts of China with differing dialects and culture than themselves, and especially “outsiders”, the diverse melting pot of different people that was America. My mom called Americans rude, noisy, and undisciplined. I had allowed her to shape some of my views, especially as a kid with no experience of my own, but as I was able to experience America on my own, I realized her words had little to no merit at all, only based on the senseless gossip passed in her circles. Her stories of disorder and violence were only a select few, a small but attention catching group who did not represent a population as a whole. The “outsiders'' I met were just people just like us, nothing less and nothing more.

Even just last week, my mom was recounting how a large gathering of dark skinned people made her nervous, despite numerous lectures from me and my siblings telling her to stop being so discriminative. I know that my mom grew up without any exposure to the diversity of people that exist in America. Her false conceptions are solely based on the false narratives constructed by false media and whispers of her acquaintances whose perceptions are corrupted by the same things. Her mindset is fixed and not so easily adjustable like how stubborn older people are. Unlike her, I have grown up in America and have had the luxury of experiencing diversity and acceptance of differences. I’ve learned from her to not feed into mindless misinformation and not to form preconceived notions on others without any real experience on my own part. This is something I will continue to practice, forming unbiased and objective perspectives of others, and continue to be accepting of differences and celebrating diversity, without allowing stereotypes and prejudice to cloud my judgment. 

Jimmy Chen, Period 1, 11/10/2023

 Jimmy Chen

Period 1

11/09/23

Socio-political Consciousness

     My current feeling about the war in the Middle East reminds me of the aftermath of 9/11, but without the planes hitting a tower. I feel this way because I think the US is going to be pulled into the war in the Middle East. Although I am not of Middle Eastern origin, having to think about the country I live in gets pulled into another war regarding the Middle East. Depending on the situation, my life could be changed if the war starts to escalate. Maybe I could ignore this situation for now, but I can not disregard the fact a similar event to 9/11 could happen. 

     Another event, although a few years old now, would be the Russia-Ukraine war because tensions don't seem to be decreasing. My feelings about this war is that this war could also affect my life if the US is pulled into further conflict with Russia. Maybe the US would get more directly involved in the war. Only time can tell what could happen in the future. Maybe a better outcome could arise from the war, like a regime change or something like that.

     Overall, both wars are concerning not only me, but to many people we might care about. Though the war in Ukraine concerns me more due to Russia’s arsenal, I still worry about another imminent war in the Middle East.  It would be a lot better if the tensions decreased, which would prevent or stop a war. But, I have no control over these situations and I would just have to let time tell what will happen. 

Benjamin Cavallaro, Period 6, 11/09/23

 Benjamin Cavallaro, Period 6, 11/9/23

Modern Mythology 2024

Research Paper 

     Something that intrigued me since the first project we did in our mythology class, and has continued to come up over our lessons, is repeating motifs and stories across different cultures and times. When looking through all the Cinderella stories I wondered how such similar stories came from such different places. I was similarly curious about the similarities drawn between Dionysus and Jesus or the similarities between different creation myths we studied in class, especially when pertaining to the concept of Chaos. So, following this interest, I decided to research a little bit on comparative mythology and folklore analysis. 

     From cursory research I learned that comparative mythology and folklore are large but controversial fields. There are certainly identifiable repetitions in stories across the world, similar to the Cinderella stories we read in class. One well known example of mythological repetition is the story of the flood. In both the Abrahamic Bible and the Mesopotamian epics of Gilgamesh and Atrahasis there are stories about a great flood brought on by a god wiping out all life save a man who builds a boat and the species he protects. Other repeating themes in mythology include gods that die and are reborn, a fated apocalypse, and an afterlife. (Comparative Mythology) A flaw common in this analysis that is shown with these examples is that, particularly with comparative mythology analysis, there is a heavy focus on motifs from Christianity. Oftentimes these connections can be created because of biases brought from familiarity with Christian stories or a kind of confirmation bias. 

     There are three possibilities that comparative folklorists and mythologists believe that these motifs could travel across cultures and geographically; either through communication and the spreading of stories, called diffusion, different cultures having a common root or ancestor these stories come from, or the similarities happening completely independently. (Comparative Mythology) The most popular interpretation from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was the “Finish method.” The Finish method catalogs and compares different stories as well as historical and geographical of those stories in order to determine a single point of origin and path of diffusion. (Dorson) This method firmly supports the idea of similarities in folklore being caused by diffusion, mostly through historical context like trade routes and colonization. It is also detail focused, and deflects from answering the question of why similarities in folklore exist in a philosophical, artistic, or metaphysical way. 

     In contrast with the Finish Method some posit that the source of similarity in folklore and myth can be found in Psychoanalytic or Jungian theory. The core of this approach is more philosophical and metaphysical, drawing parallels between symbols in folklore and parts of human nature. One of the most popular examples of this is the Oedipus complex, Sigmund Freud’s theory that young boys are innately sexually attracted to their mothers, which was directly named after the Greek myth of Oedipus. (Dorson) This approach supports the idea that similar folklore was developed independently because of similarities in human nature. Although it has less evidence backing it, it does address elements of literary analysis that the Finish method does not. This kind of theory inspired the idea of the monomyth and Hero’s Journey that I, and many others, am personally familiar with from past English classes. 

     One more recently popular way of analyzing similarities in folklore is Structural Theory. Structural Theory analyzes less of the actual contents of the stories and more of the way the stories are told structurally to inform how similarities are made. For example, Structural theory identifies the presence of repetition or gaps in traditionally oral myths that allow for better memorization or improvisation respectively. It would look at the monster, villain, or other antagonist not through the lens of how they contribute conflict and excitement, as well as consistency, to a story. (Dorson) By doing this Structural Folklore theory attributes similarities in Folklore to the constraints and methods of the medium of Folklore itself. 

     Through my research I realized that the answer I wanted was not as easy to find as I anticipated. There are a plethora of conflicting theories, many more than I wrote about here, that are all similarly fascinating and have massive amounts of research on them. I find myself drawn to the more philosophical explanations of comparative folklore and the fascinating meaning they bring to the stories humanity has created, but I also can’t help agreeing with the more rational perspective of something like the Finish Method either. One thing is for sure, doing this research has only cemented my fascination with folklore as a subject that is almost larger than life, with so many possible meanings and influences. 

Works Cited:

"Comparative Mythology ." Encyclopedia of Religion. . Encyclopedia.com. 18 Oct. 2023 <https://www.encyclopedia.com>

     

Dorson, Richard M. “Current Folklore Theories.” Current Anthropology, vol. 4, no. 1, 1963, pp. 93–112. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2739820. Accessed 9 Nov. 2023.

Annie Zhao, PD 6, 10/31/23

Topic: Literacy & Learning

Since the age of 8, when I first picked up a Greek Mythology picture book, I have known the story of Medusa to what I thought was the farthest extent. With snakes for hair and the ability to turn men into stone, I took her as the villain she was depicted to be and that was all. Even the famed Percy Jackson novels describe her as a monster who needed to be culled. Later on, I read stories and internet posts that portrayed her as a victim. One who suffered by the hands of Poseidon and received both the blessing and curse that was her snakes and power. I found that description to be much more palpable yet horrifying, especially as I grew older and understood the fears of being a woman.

However, as we delved into Stone Blind by Natalie Haynes, I discovered the truth behind Medusa’s story and character, or rather, her lack of one. I was baffled to find that she wasn’t a villain or a victim, just a simple background character. Of course, in the grand scheme of Greek mythology, she didn’t play much of a role other than being a stepping stone for Perseus, but I always preferred the idea that Medusa was more of a victim than a monster. Her name is famed enough for people to easily create an image of her in their heads and get symbolic Medusa tattoos, so why is it that her existence is traced back to one sentence?

This led me to think of our reading through the feminist lens. After we discussed and learned about critical theories, I now read any material through multiple lenses. With Stone Blind, whenever there is even the mention of a woman, I’m already thinking through the feminist lens, especially because of the historical period the book is set in. Considering the time period, women were constantly belittled, erased, or sexualized. A woman is either a lover, a mother, or a villain. No inbetween. With Medusa, her lack of identity meant that her character had to fall into one of those categories. What I find thought-provoking is the fact that she is depicted as a villain in mostly modern stories. There are many interpretations of Greek mythology yet most of the modern fictional adaptations are those that view her as the antagonist. Shouldn’t the most current portrayals of Medusa be the most multi-faceted? And yet, the fiction, films, and even comics that contain depictions of Medusa do the opposite.

In fact, tons of literature written in the modern day persistently portray women the same way they did centuries before, as one of the three main categories. Two phrases that were trending on social media come to mind; “written by a man” or “written by a woman”. The general consensus is that women in literature written by men are always one-dimensional, either meek and submissive or domineering and mean. Their characters can be encompassed by a single trait or purpose and nothing else. When women are written by women, there’s a significant distinction in characterization. There’s depth, backstories, and motives to the characters, instead of just cliche traits. Medusa is a clear example of a woman written by a man and that is the reason why she remains the antagonist. The patriarchal, sexist views and egotistical apathy of men are the reason Medusa is either just a passing mention or a vicious monster, and why many women in literature have suffered the same fate.

Ethan Sadykhov, Period 1, 10/19/23

Modern Mythology 2024
Topic: Literacy and Learning

I personally have always been interested in the ideas and concepts of mythology. It has always been very interesting to me. Just the idea of these gods and different monsters with their different roles and abilities has always been cool and interesting. The only difference between now and then is the depth of the mythology I am looking at and how everything has its own meaning or purpose. Now I am realizing that the stories I read or saw when I was younger were very different from those I am reading now.

When I first read about Medusa I had no clue what or who she was. All I knew was that she was an evil monster with snakes for hair that turned people to stone with just her gaze. Later on I learned that she in fact used to be human. She was turned into what I later learned was, a gorgon. She was transformed by Athena the goddess of wisdom.

I actually first heard about Medusa through Percy Jackson and the Olympians(first movie). In the movie she is portrayed as a beautiful woman who was turned into a gorgon by Athena because of her jealousy. Athena was jealous that Poseidon(god of the seas) was infatuated with Medusa. So she turned her into a gorgon where no one can admire her beauty.

However, after going deeper into Medusa’s story in class I learned a very shocking truth. Medusa was actually a priestess of Athena's temple. One day she was violated by Poseidon. As she begged for help from her goddess Athena, the goddess turned a blind eye. After the incident Athena cursed her so that no man could ever look at her beauty again.

This new information I learned can be viewed in many different ways. One view is that Athena was jealous and angry so she cursed Medusa. However, some say Athena was actually helping Medusa as this curse protected her from the same situation.

This new knowledge of Medusa teaches that there are multiple perspectives to any given situation. Whether it be a book, a movie, history, or something on the news. This allows me to learn how to see things from different perspectives enlarging my knowledge of different topics.

Jayden Zhou, PD 6, 11/6/23

Modern Mythology 2024

Topic: Literacy and Learning


What exactly is a monster? Is it something/someone that is big and ugly? Is it something/someone that looks deformed in some sort of way? Is it something/someone that is inherently evil and violent? Is it a combination of whatever that is listed above? Or is a monster something else?

There really is no definitive answer to what a monster is. However, there is one thing for certain: a monster has a negative connotation of something/someone being bad.

Take Medusa, for example. In Greek mythology, she is one of the three Gorgons (the others being Stheno and Euryale) ever born. She is often portrayed as a crazy, evil-looking woman, with hundreds of venomous snakes as her hair. Anything that looked into her eyes would instantly turn them into stone. Such descriptions can characterize Medusa as a monster: she looks evil, can kill people with her gaze, and is probably dangerous to society (if she was real).

Now take Perseus, a demigod and a hero. In Greek mythology, he is the son of Zues, and is most famous for slaying Medusa by cutting her head off. He is also famous for saving Andromeda from The Kraken, a terrifying beast from the ocean. Such actions do not really characterize Perseus as a monster, due to the fact that he rescued a princess and slayed a monster in the process.

Now, here is my question: why is it that Medusa is portrayed as a monster and that Perseus isn’t one? Why do we rarely associate Perseus as a monster for killing Medusa? I am not an expert in psychology or anything, but maybe we tend to think in a fixed mindset. We tend to think that something/someone bad will do only bad things and that something/someone good will only do good things. We do not really consider the fact that something/someone bad can do good things or vice versa.

Imagine this scenario: a group of people snuck into a wealthy person’s house and killed him in cold blood. News spread quickly about this murder and it turns out that the group of people responsible for the murder have a reputation of being savages, who targeted this particular person because they wanted his/her skull. In this scenario, the group of people are most likely viewed as “monsters” by the public (us), and that there is no good justification for committing such a crime.

Now, reimagine this scene, but this time, the victim was also identified. It turns out that he was a corrupt businessman, who stole billions of dollars from the public. In this context, are these savages considered “monsters” now? In our minds, the answer is most likely no, because they did something good, and they will probably even be viewed as heroes. However, that does not change the fact that they killed a person, which is something a “monster” would do. Therefore, if these savages are neither a monster or a hero, then what are they?

Perhaps, we are just stereotyping what is or is not a monster without even noticing and glossing over how perspective can change the way we see things.

Nikita Poletaev, Period 6, 10/10/23

 Nikita Poletaev

Period 6

Due 2023-10-10

Analysis of Patriarchy and its Roots in Creation Myth

Based on a discussion we had in class, there seems to be a correlation between certain features in the creation myths of cultures, and the incidence of patriarchy in said cultures. Many creation myths formed in agricultural societies share similar characteristics: there was chaos before creation, that before animal life came a mother nature, and that there was no hint of malady in life before a single event. For the purposes of this ramble, I am interested in one quirk of this last feature specifically: that women are the source of evil in our world. Here I aim to attempt to explain – to both myself and the audience – why exactly this has affected society in the way that it has. I hope to achieve this by diving into the single most widespread creation myth in all of human history, that being the creation narrative in the Book of Genesis.

In the most common translation of this myth, God/Yahweh/Jehovah/Elohim/etc. creates the first human man, Adam, in the Garden of Eden. The god then proceeds to create Eve, the first woman and companion to Adam, from Adam’s rib. After some time living in bliss, Eve is tempted by a serpent living in the Garden to take an apple from the Tree of Life. She falls for the cruel temptation, eats of the fruit, and offers it to her husband who eats it as well. This is the source of the concept of “original sin” in Christianity, and all of humanity must atone for it, by default, for eternity.

This version of the myth is, like all others, an interpretation of an ancient Hebrew text. It is a translation of a language that hasn’t been spoken in millenia, and from my understanding, was often written without vowels. This brings up the possible issue of errors or bias in translation, which would completely transform the meaning behind the selection. For instance, the translation of the creation of Eve seems to be quite lopsided, both literally and figuratively. In the previously stated translation, Eve comes from the rib of Adam; this gives the impression of inferiority, of women being only a small part of the whole. In the original Hebrew text, this is written with the word tsela’. In all other instances of the word, it has been translated in the context of the side of something, or something lateral. This interpretation is, ironically, more broad yet more accurate. It conjures up the idea that man and woman complete each other, that they are equally as essential for human life and society to properly function. This is in stark contrast to the subconscious idea of inferiority that the “rib” interpretation brings. From this we can glean another issue with the aforestated interpretation – if Adam and Eve are truly equals, why then is Eve practically vilified in this story? Why is she implied to be this temptress, extending the influence of the serpent in the Garden?

The answer to this question, as we touched upon in class, seems rather straightforward once actually stated – power. From historical analysis, we can with great certainty assume that this was done to exert indirect power over the population by polarizing them. As Christianity continued to spread from approximately 1 AD onwards, it became more and more institutionalized and intertwined with the ruling classes of society. The church became equivalent in power to kings in kingdoms across Europe, where Christianity most spread to. Religion was the same as education for most. The clergy was even one of the three estates of pre-Revolution France, arguably more powerful than their King ever was. This institution had gained widespread power over centuries. It had to gain the trust of the nobility somehow, and the way to do this was to give them power over their people; and what better way to do that than to subconsciously turn them against each other? 

 The church was able to successfully twist the stories told to children to teach them about how the world works; they were able to ingrain in society this belief that the man is superior, for the farmer does all the work in the fields and his wife only keeps the house. This belief was widespread, lasting for hundreds of years, permeating only through the humbler members of society. The scholars writing these translations for the church, whether they were knowingly creating this bias or semi-knowingly proliferating it, were only part of the issue. They were more educated than the common person, and may have taken ‘creative’ liberties in their translations, using figurative language and the like. This would be perfectly comprehensible by the nobility, who were also educated and even more experienced with poetry and flowery language. But if we were to step into the shoes of the peasant, we would understand why the church’s tactics worked. You would go to your pastor for their Sunday service, your only day off from work. You, your wife, your many children would listen to him read from the Holy Book, the penned-down word of God. Surely, then, this word was literal and exact, for our God is all-knowing and all-powerful. To try to interpret His word otherwise would be blasphemy; it would go against God’s very will! 

Through time, as quality of life increased, as revolutions came and went, education gradually became more accessible. Some moved on from religion, others stayed. Old habits die hard, though, and the notion that the Bible is to be strictly interpreted became etched into the cultural heritage of the Christian world, even as it became more secular. Even after the separation of church from state, church is not separate from people. We are left with inequality as a relic of the lust for power of rulers of yore. While the inequality we see today is, like its roots, a shadow of its former self, it is still a major issue. Society as a whole has gotten immeasurably more educated. As we hang on to these obsoleted biases, we hang on to the patriarchy that has stemmed from them, and that simply has no valid place in our modern world.