- "In Groups We Shrink" by Carol Tavris (pg. 261)
- "The Rights of the Born" by Anne Lamott (pg. 271)
In what way(s) are these two articles in dialogue with one another? Can you apply the ideas expressed in "In Groups We Shrink" with the situation described by Anne Lamott in "The Rights of the Born"?
In the article In Groups We Shrink it talks about how people are afraid or embarrass to speak up if surrounded by other individuals to come to the aid of someone or if a situation arises en which they need to react to save themselves or others. The Rights of the Born speaks about a discussion that's taking place and the individual is hesitant at first to speak their mind in front of the 1,300 people not wanting to offend anyone.
ReplyDeleteIn the article In Groups We Shrink it talks about how people are afraid or embarrass to speak up if surrounded by other individuals to come to the aid of someone or if a situation arises en which they need to react to save themselves or others. The Rights of the Born speaks about a discussion that's taking place and the individual is hesitant at first to speak their mind in front of the 1,300 people not wanting to offend anyone.
ReplyDeleteNina:
ReplyDeleteDespite of the differences between the directions and styles, both articles are related by the common idea of importance to listen to yourself and act according to your own conscious. Anne Lamott and Carol Travis, being ocupationally oriented in a completly different ways, succeed to demonstrate in their works that our behavior that is usually dectated by generally accepted stereotypes can lead only to a passive acceptance of the existing order. The fear to express your own opinion that refflects the opposit of the common one sometimes is not just a damage to your confidence but something more important: something that could bring changes to the entire social system that is so far from the ideal.
In the rights of the born, Ann Lamont felt obligated to not say what was on her because there were so many people around her, all had different religions and opinions. Therefore she wanted to bite her tongue by not saying anything which she did because of respect for the speaker. "you have the right to remain silent" buzzed in the head, telling her to be quiet because she did not want to offend any one group. In "groups we shrink" Carol Davis was stating a point that individuals will not speak out and say what is on their mind when they are in a group, but rather keep it to themselves and be quiet, thinking someone else will step forward to do it. Then again it comes down to choice, when an individual is by him/herself, the feeling changes. Carol came up with the idea, that they will make up their mind on the choice they think is right and will go through with it. In having an abortion, it is the decision of the person, "the individual" to make the choice, and not a group of people like the government or public officials. In a group nobody wants to be wrong, so the issue on abortion will never be resolved. It is up to the person carrying the unborn to make a decision. This is how both dialogues are connected. Two different stories, yet have kind of the same meaning.
ReplyDeleteThe two articles, "In Groups We Shrink", and "The Rights of the Born" shares an idea of moral rights about human behavior and abortion. "In Groups We Shrink" discusses about how human reacts in ignorance and carefree behavior to certain situation when he is with group. And the group blinds the person from the essence of morality. In "The Rights of the Born", Anne Lamott seem to attack morality of abortion by defending pro-abortion standing view. In paragraph 13, she says abortion "is not a morally ambiguous issue" for her and "that fetuses are not babies yet". Towards the end she says women should care for "babies (born)" instead of worrying about the "fetus (unborn)". She also says that women has their rights to do what she wants with the fetus. In general, both stories show that numbers decide the issue of morality. There are more women than men on Earth, which show that women's decisions are moral. And the group that display dominant number compared to one victim defines their act as morally right.
ReplyDeleteThe first article "IN GROUPS WE SHRINK" it was telling us how when we are in a group, we hesitate to do things, and when we are by our self's we are more likely to act on something more quicker. well in the second article " THE RIGHTS OF THE BORN" it was the writer who was there and she hesitated to say something about abortion, might have somthing to do with a lot of women being there, and they were probably waiting for someone else to stand up and say something but at the end the writer her self stood up and said something about abortion. here it showed how the writer at first hesitated to stand up and say something because she was in a group, proving "IN GROUPS WE SHRINK " RIGHT.
ReplyDeleteI think both articles talk about the same complex human situation ¨ the lack of sincerity and authenticity that affects us when we are in front of others¨. It is a common attitude that we act differently than we think when we are collecting with others, even when we are collecting with people who know us and understand us , we tend to be not truthful. In groups we shrink Carol Tavris stated ¨Something happens to individuals when they collect in a group. They think and act differently than they would on their own¨. This is exactly what seems to have happened when the man asked the question ¨murder of a million babies every year in America ". Anne Lamott held her initial reaction, but ultimately sought ¨a way to express her opinion, the fact of being in that scenario with those people around, limited her response in principle, to express what she felt and thought openly. It should be noted that although she took the courageous decision to speak out her truth, then she was worried about what she had said and the effects her words might have. The lady who identified with her at the end, is another example of the way we act in front of others ...she supported the argument of Anne, she agreed with her, but she reserved her comment to the final and made it direct to Anne ¨ when the others did not hear ¨. Dilenia
ReplyDelete