Age?

25


Sex?

Male


What is your degree subject (both if joint)?

English


Does ‘Being Bad’ relate well to the other modules you are taking?

Not directly, save for the occasional ‘Critical Thinking’ lecture.


If so, how? And if not, why not?

Most of my present modules tend to deal with history, while ‘Being Bad’ relates more to modern perceptions and more immediate issues. However, there are many similarities in the methods of analysis and argument.


Have you found ‘Being Bad’ too demanding, too easy, or at an appropriate level?

I wouldn’t say it has been particularly difficult, but my final grades might paint a different picture so I’ll stay with the safe option and say it was appropriate.


Do you think the list of topics covered on the module was appropriate?

Yes.


Are there any topics not included in the module that you would like to see included?

Quite a lot actually, though I respect that with such limited time, it is not possible. Nevertheless, some ideas include: influence of the media, drugs, alcohol, hacking, copyright piracy, corporate and political crime, terrorism (probably too sensitive a subject however), sex and promiscuity, graffiti and vandalism, and violent movies/TV/computer games.


Do you think that the format for classes has worked well?

Exceptionally well. The presentation of the classes (despite odd technical setbacks) managed to maintain my attention and the information is concise and easy to record. They have also allowed many of us to interact and make new acquaintances/friends.



What did you think of the module team?

Well, bearing in mind I still have an essay and my web log due to be marked, I’d say they were all fantastic, witty, intelligent and attractive people. I might even say role models.


Do you think it would have been better to have had more:
Small group discussions?
Discussion and debate among the class as a whole?
Information and talk from lecturers?

I would have liked small group discussions, as the size of the classes has been overwhelming and restrictive in that sense. I think smaller groups could have been more conducive for open debates and diverse opinions.


The approach taken in the module is interdisciplinary (drawing on perspectives from English Literature, Film Studies, Creative Writing, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Media Studies and Politics): do you think this a useful way of approaching the topics covered in the module?

Yes. It injects variety into the course and broadens our scope of thought.


Do you think that interdisciplinary modules are a good idea?

In part, yes. I appreciate the diversity of the lectures and the different formats and open topics for assignments.


Do you think you have benefited from the interdisciplinary approach taken in the module?

It’s probably too early to tell as I’m not sure what is expected of my future modules.


Would you like to see more modules that cover this kind of subject matter?

Definitely, although I would like to see different angles on the subjects – i.e. why people indulge in bad behaviour, what influences it and are some people more susceptible than others.


Are you planning to take the follow-up module PH2004 ‘Thou Shalt Not’ (note: the name of this module is likely to be changed to ‘It Shouldn’t be Allowed!’) at level 2?

Again, it’s probably too soon to say. A lot depends on the timetable, alternative modules and my progress with my modules during semester 2.


Would you recommend ‘Being Bad’ to a friend?

As a first semester class, definitely. It offers a very positive introduction to university and the format of analysis and deconstruction.



Do you think that the blogs (web logs) were a good idea?

In theory. But while I personally haven’t experienced too many difficulties, it does place some students (those with little computer knowledge) at a disadvantage. If it could be simplified in some way, or if students were given the option of keeping a written log, it would prove much more productive. I have, however, enjoyed reading the thoughts of others and recording my own thoughts on the topics and will even consider continuing my log after the module has ended.


What did you think of the other assessments (e.g. would it be better to have one longer assessment rather than two shorter ones?)?

Having two assignments was beneficial in the sense that we were able to learn from the feedback and improve on the second. Although I have found the 300 word limit extremely restrictive and frustrating. I would have benefited from more leeway (100 words).


What have you learned from the module?

I’ve learned a lot about other people and modern attitudes. I have also learned to question preconceptions. I can’t say that my opinions about myself have changed significantly, but it has reinforced a lot of my principles.


What parts of the module have you found most useful and why?

The feedback from my first assignment has been very useful, as it has encouraged me to analyse assignment questions and criteria before rushing in. The web logs have also been rather inspirational, keeping my brain active (sometimes at the expense of sleep – note the time of this entry).


What parts do you think were a waste of time and why?

I was not so keen on the idea of the anonymous confessions as it tended to result in one-upmanship and general silliness.


Are there any other comments you wish to make regarding ‘Being Bad’?

I would like to commend the use of WOLF. Unfortunately, ‘Being Bad’ is the only module I'm taking that makes full use of this facility, yet I have found it considerably useful in keeping informed of any developments, and reassuring to know that we can request assistance via email or the forum, as opposed to arranging specific appointments and waiting outside an office for an hour or two.

The Ultimate Sin

I’m sure we have all, at some time or another, been guilty of this sin, and have been admonished for it on countless times during childhood, and perhaps even as adults. But I’m willing to bet that few of you can recall falling victim to this heinous wrongdoing, except perhaps the parents, teachers, clergypersons and employers among you.

It’s a crime that goes by the names ‘back answering’ or ‘answering back’, and offenders can expect to face severe punishment, including grounding, twenty Hail Marys or a visit to the headmaster’s office. Some, more persistent offenders, could even face detention, expulsion or unemployment.

It’s outright tyranny when you think about it, but the alarming thing is that it’s so common. Stating a contrary opinion or even defending oneself against an authority figure – regardless of how unjust their argument might be - is one sure way of incurring their wrath and making the situation so much worse for yourself. In most instances it’s better to be wrongly punished for something than to be punished for ‘answering back’.

Throughout history people have even been put to death for it: Socrates, St Thomas More and the protestors at Tiananman Square, serve as just a few examples.

The Devil's Playground

Although I did not attend the outing to Alton Towers, I was thinking recently about its relevance to this module. As mentioned in class, there is an idea of risk when travelling at high speeds or being suspended from great heights, but I also think that fairgrounds serve as a demonstration of human discontentment.

In many cases people start out on rides they feel comfortable with. It proves exhilarating at first, but after a few rides the excitement wears thin, they grow accustomed to the feeling and so they progress onto something more daring, each time hoping to recapture their initial kick. By the end of the day they have conquered every structure in the park and still hunger for more.

This would appear to be the same with drugs, sex, theft and any number of imprudent activities. The first time is new and exciting, but with familiarity it becomes mundane, and the only way to relive that initial high is to seek a bigger and more daring fix. Although (as yet) there is no medical proof that marijuana leads to harder drugs or that pornography creates sexual deviants, for some people the transition could only be a matter how soon they become discontented with the former.

Author’s Freedom

I am writing this entry in reply to Christopher Atkins’ blog, in which he refers to a well-known author (whose name cannot be stated, possibly for one legal reason or another) being penalized for exercising his freedom of speech. As much as I resent this author and would take pleasure from seeing his rights revoked, the heart of the matter is that freedom of the press is a complete fallacy.

A couple of years ago a famous DJ suffered a similar consequence for airing his preferences regarding the London mayoral elections. For this he and his host radio station were fined £75,000. Likewise, there was also a period when staff at the BBC were prohibited from making any direct reference to a certain homosexual labour politician.
With all this red tape restricting British media, and with so many facts being doctored and censored, it looks as if freedom of speech is, indeed, against the rules.

Body Modification

In most cases I believe that body modification - from a new hairstyle through to surgical implants - is done for the sake of other people. Whether they seek a positive or negative response is down to the individual, but I’m convinced that they seek a response. It may not be a verbal reaction they are after; a smile from a member of the opposite sex or a frown from a prude would suffice. It seems that those who claim not to care what people think tend to thrive on the objections they receive.

Personally, I fail to see any benefit from rebellion via fashion or self-mutilation. Unfortunately, people do judge others on appearances. It may not be politically correct, but it’s generally true, and a negative appearance can impair one’s chances of coping in society. Nobody demands that we obey these conventions, but if we refuse to adapt to society, then we can’t expect society to adapt to us.

Propaganda

As something of an extension to the last entry, and as a different take on the theme of lying, I’ve decided to add a short log about propaganda.

This is something that is imposed on us every day of our lives, by the government, advertisers, books, magazines and TV. While it doesn’t qualify as lying in a direct sense, it is perhaps the most effective form of deceit used today; a means of steering our opinions by withholding facts or representing the truth in an ambiguous way.

In Britain and America, for example, we are constantly subjected to replays of the falling twin towers, dead bodies, sobbing families, tied in with footage of celebrating Iraqis and al qaida training videos, and set to a poignant soundtrack. Rarely are we shown the death and misery caused by U.S. missiles and mass evacuations. Nor are we shown the bellicose military hotheads cheering when they wipe out the ‘enemy’, and countless civilians alongside them, because the truth in this case would portray them as bad. What we don’t know can’t affect us, right?

The same can be said for movies like Saving Private Ryan and Pearl Harbour, which attempt to glorify the actions of the ‘allies’ as courageous defenders of all that is good, while portraying their enemies as malicious bullies, taking pleasure in the suffering of the innocent. Complemented by dramatic camera work, powerful music and graphic violence, such films stir our emotions and fill our heads with lasting impressions and presuppositions, while the phrase ‘based on true events’ leads us to think of the film as a factual reconstruction.

Yet propaganda can come from all directions, even as a common strategy in the fight against it, used to influence people into anti-authority, -capitalist or -religious thinking.

But is it bad to deceive people in this way? There are no laws against propaganda and disinformation, and it certainly has no opposition from religious organisations, so it would appear that it’s a perfectly acceptable practice in itself. Since the idea of propaganda is to sway our thoughts rather than dictate them, it could then be argued that our resulting actions are our own responsibility, formed from individual free will.

Government propaganda or anti-government propaganda?

For a few weeks now I’ve been looking at the blog of Saqib Hussain and contemplating whether to reply. So far I have been hesitant in commenting on the Middle East and America situation because it is such a complicated and sensitive area.

Nevertheless, I do agree with Saqib that Bush’s regime is responsible for countless Muslim deaths (and the rest) and that everything he speaks is pure hypocrisy. However, this applies equally to all the Islamic fanatics who are willing to murder God’s people (including many fellow Muslims) in the name of God - or rather, in the name of self-appointed representatives.

Indeed it does appear to a lot of people that the American government’s objective is to get their hands on Middle East oil supplies – and thus monopolize the world. But wasn’t that what Saddam was attempting to do when he invaded Kuwait in 1991?

It seems that both sides have the same goal in mind (power and wealth), but to achieve this they need people to fight on their side. This is where all the political propaganda comes in, leading us to think that the whole issue is based on good vs. evil or black vs. white. Which side is which, all depends on who you listen to.

My personal objection is not with Muslims nor with the American people. My objection is with the governments and religions attempting to turn individuals against each other and involve them in a war that doesn’t concern them.

But I'll conclude this entry with an extract taken from A Moment of War by Laurie Lee, which I feel is rather appropriate in these times, with so many people fighting for a cause they don’t truly understand:


“I headed for the old barn where I'd spent my first night. I lay in a state of sick paralysis. I had killed a man, and remembered his shocked, angry eyes. There was nothing I could say to him now. Tanks rattled by and cries receded. I began to have hallucinations and breaks in the brain. I lay there knowing neither time nor place. Some of our men found me, I don't know who they were, and they drove me back speechless to Tarazona.

Was this then what I'd come for, and all my journey had meant - to smudge out the life of an unknown young man in a blur of panic which in no way could affect victory or defeat?”

Bandits

Although I found the lecture on bandits informative, I found that my thoughts on the subject were somewhat erratic. The reason, I suppose, is that while I initially agreed with their plight to defend the underdog, I could not condone their practices of armed robbery or murder, regardless of the ‘greater’ cause. After all, the direct victims were often harmless clerks and police officers just trying to earn a living and provide for their families.

Furthermore, as the lecture progressed I became convinced that the whole rob-from-the-rich-to-give-to-the-poor ethic was not the selfless act these bandits claimed it to be, but more of a charade to win moral support and to divert attention from their personal gain. It seems then that their motives were not all that different to those they allegedly opposed (i.e. the government).

Freudian Smoking Theory - a reply

For this entry I’d like to draw your attention to Amanda Hadley’s blog, in which she refers to Freud’s theory on smoking. It is certainly a fascinating idea and would make a rather effective anti-smoking campaign, although personally I’ve never given much credibility to Freud’s generic psychosexual analyses.

In my view, the idea that women use a cigarette as a substitute for a penis doesn’t quite weigh up. For one, it doesn’t explain why males choose to smoke. Secondly, this theory fails to take the biological craving for nicotine into account, which I consider a far more logical motive than the unconscious desire to posess a penis.

I’m also a little uncomfortable with the whole penis envy thing, as it sounds so outdated and sexist, appearing to suggest that smoking is an exclusively male activity, while assuming that female smokers long to be male, or at least transsexual.

Nevertheless, Amanda raises an interesting argument, which I felt compelled to dispute – if only for my own credibility as a smoker.

What makes people bad? Or more objectively speaking, what makes people think and behave in a certain way?

In my understanding the human mind, like all things in the universe, is strictly governed by the ‘cause and effect’ principle. Every action and every thought have their respective cause and consequence. Though we might try to deny the fact, even our conscious decisions have an external trigger, however indirect or insignificant it might seem.

Nobody, in my belief, is born intrinsically evil; they are simply born into a chain of actions and reactions. Our traits are shaped by our experiences as we adapt to the world around us, learning right from wrong, seeking positive results and avoiding negative ones. And since everybody is born into different circumstances, each person’s experiences and perceptions will be unique.

For the most part, we rely on the wisdom of others (including our parents, teachers and friends) to guide us in the right direction and to save us the pain of our own mistakes. We don’t have to touch a hot kettle to know that it will hurt us. We don’t have to murder somebody to know that it will bring suffering to others. But what about those who have never been taught these things, or have been raised believing the opposite?

Would Mary Bell have killed the four-year-old Martin Brown had she been born into a loving family? Her controversial biography, Unheard Cries, has left many people with a very different perspective on the matter, and the fact that it places doubt on the motives of our judicial system might explain why it was met with such an uproar on its release.

After all, isn’t justice just a more agreeable synonym for revenge?

There is something of a moral dilemma in this reasoning, however, as it could be argued that all crimes can then be excused as a product of unfortunate or corruptive circumstances. Fred West, for instance, could be excused for his crimes on the basis that he might have led a lawful life had he not met Rosemary…and vice versa. But when it comes down to it, the primary intention of the law is not to understand or to rehabilitate wrongdoers, but rather to pander to humanity’s demand for vengeance.

But looking at crimes from a determinist standpoint, these people are only the scapegoats of a decadent society, punished for being in the wrong place(s) at the wrong time(s). If we really hope to find the root of bad behaviour we need to look at society itself, at the media, politics, music, teachers, family, friends, religion, and everything else that steers people’s way of thinking.

Parental Irresponsibility?

Movies?

Sport?

Religion?

Politics?


In reference to this issue, I passionately recommend reading the following books: Death Duties and Ploughing Potter’s Field (there are a number of copies available at Wolverhampton Library).

Lying with Integrity

I have to admit that lying has always been something of a habit for me, which until today I had never really considered a particularly bad quality. I would say that, for the most part, I lie with good intentions at heart, either to protect a person’s feelings or to avoid seeming impolite. Although sometimes I lie simply to avoid facing an awkward situation.

Today, when asked to discuss our best or worst lies, ‘one’ lie in particular sprang to mind. It’s not the worst lie I have told, but it certainly turned out to be the most elaborate…

For four months, I had been trapped in a job I utterly despised. But owing to the cordiality of the staff and their efforts to make me feel appreciated, I just couldn’t bring myself to tell them that I was unhappy there. After a lot of contemplation I finally managed to find the courage to tell the boss I was planning to leave.

Now it had been my intention to tell her that the job wasn’t right for me and that I had decided to pursue another career path. However, when confronted with the situation, what I ended up saying was along the lines of, “I’ve decided to leave because I have a chance of going to Saudi Arabia for a few months”. I had thought out so many excuses over the past 3 months and 25 days and this was probably the worst of them all (well, second to my plans to feign narcolepsy). But for some reason, it sounded like the most reasonable thing to say at the time.

Well, she accepted my decision and wished me the best of luck. It all went much better than I’d planned, and above all, I would soon be free. But by the following day, word had gotten around and everybody I worked with wanted to know where I was going, why, what I would be doing there, when I was leaving and when I planned to return. I felt so guilty about deceiving everybody, but I couldn’t possibly admit the truth now. So instead, my lies became more detailed and more convincing. It reached the stage where I was taking notes just to keep track of my lies. I even planned out my supposed flight details, including my estimated time of arrival at Jeddah airport. All this to avoid seeming ungrateful.

On my last day before leaving everybody wished me a safe journey and some gave me a few words of advice and a tearful farewell. They even made me promise to send a postcard when I arrived (this could be difficult). It was nice to know I’d made a positive impression, but I don’t think I’ve ever felt so ashamed of myself.

So that was that. I had told myself I would never lie again when, the following week, I just chanced to meet up with a couple of my former colleagues in town. When they asked why I was still here, I ended up telling them that I had postponed my trip to Saudi Arabia because my mum had been rushed into hospital the evening before I was due to leave. They seemed to accept this, but I doubt they believed it, and I don’t think they like me any more.

I guess it’s debatable whether my actions were actually bad or not. I think it comes down to whether these people felt hurt by my deceit.

Kids

I admit, I have not seen this film in full and I do not intend to. Perhaps this could be considered narrow-minded of me, but the fact is, I found what I saw extremely offensive. I am aware that it is supposed to be a realistic and shocking insight into urban life, but what I found disturbing were its blatant paedophilic implications. It is, quite bluntly, simulated child pornography with commercial approval, and I think it is outrageous that society could allow this film into circulation; among impressionable youngsters and into the hands of prospective child molesters.

It also leads me to question the motives of the director (Larry Clark). Was the movie an elaborate pretext for him to enact some twisted personal fantasies? I realise that what I am saying is verging on libel, but imagine the following scenario:

A 52 year old man (a former convict) approaches a group of teenagers in a park and invites them back to his place. Once there, he asks them to remove their clothes and act as if they were having sex, while he watches over them.

I am sure many people would consider this unacceptable behaviour. Yet, when placed in the context of a studio, with financial incentives, the same scenario is deemed perfectly reasonable and the man is labelled a genius. Once again, this would appear to serve as another example of eminence being used to condone immoral behaviour.

Incidentally, I have found some information on Larry Clark’s other work, including the films “Bully” and “Teenage Caveman”, and a book entitled “Teenage Lust”, from which the following extract is taken:

‘i always wished i had a camera when i was a boy. fucking in the backseat. gangbangs with the pretty girl all the other girls in the neighborhood hated. the fat girl next door who gave me blowjobs after school and i treated her mean and told all my pals. we kept count up to about three hundred the times we fucked her in the eighth grade. i got the crabs from babs. albert who said "no i'm first, she's my sister."’

Would you trust this man around your children?