Monday, July 27, 2015

The Artistry of Anime

(warning: this post contains spoilers and detailed information of various shows.  I do not own any of the shows presented or the artwork provided)

I am a pretty big fan of anime.  I first got into it when I was a young teenager watching DragonBall Z.  I then grew into a wider diversity of shows as I went into high school and college, and have stayed in love with it ever since. 

While watching and completing two more anime shows recently, I started pondering why I enjoy anime so much.  What makes them stick out to me at all, much less more than other shows?  What do these television programs have that others do not?

Before answering that, though, it is important to define what anime is and what it is not.  This video on youtube is helpful in going into the details of such a definition, but here I will give a basic definition as well as my own specific take on it.

In short, an anime is a Japanese animation show.  That is all.  So obviously such a broad definition has many different sub-genres in itself.  Think of cartoons, for example; cartoons are nothing more then American or Western animation shows.  Yet no one would argue that all cartoon shows are meant for the same group of people.  For example, Dora the Explorer, a show directed at toddlers and very young children, is vastly different from Avatar, a show geared towards older children and teenagers.

The same applies to anime.  There is a whole range of different anime shows that are meant and designed for a wide demographic of viewers.  For the sake of this article, then, I will be referring to anime as those Japanese animation shows geared towards teenagers and adults, since those are the ones that peek my interest and the interest of my peers.

So what is it about anime that makes it so appealing?  I can only speak for myself (though from what I can observe anime has become more and more popular within Western society) when I say that I enjoy almost everything that anime has to offer, from character development to action-packed scenes to plot twists.

Of course such things exist in any good show or movie, so what is it about anime that sets it apart from other forms of television entertainment?  To me, it ultimately comes down to this: it focuses on real-world problems, addresses real-world concerns, shines light upon real-world debates and reflects upon real-world living that other shows either ignore or discuss on a superficial level. 

This seems paradoxical.  For one, anime is, by definition, a cartoon and is thus not real.  Also the majority of the storylines in such cartoons are usually ridiculously, if awesomely, unreal. 

Take one of the more famous anime shows as an example.  Naruto is about a bunch of barely adolescent kids who are taught to become ninjas. They learn how to use various weapons as well as how to use a myriad of techniques known as jutsu, which is essentially magical abilities, in order to become stronger ninja and to carry out missions in a ninja-based world.  There are demon animals, energy within oneself called chakra, landscape-changing fight scenes, talking animals, and more.



Based on this description it seems like it is the exact opposite of reality, and one would be right to say that, in a sense.  Of course the plot, setting, and background of the story is completely fictional and invented.  That does not mean, however, that within this created and fictional universe of ninjas and fighting abilities there does not lie a discussion of sorts of the very things we see and experience in our world.

One of the  things I love about Naruto, for instance, is that it does a better job then any other show I have seen so far in humanizing the villains.  It is very common in any show, whether it be a cartoon or live action, to display the villain as the embodiment of evil, as having no goodness or heart within him.  But of course that is virtually never the case in the real world.  Indeed, we are all to a certain extent evil in the sense that we all do things that we know are wrong to do, or don't do things that we know we should do.  Even the worst of those that humanity has ever produced have shown love or care in some fashion; it is impossible for a human to be a human and not do so.

Naruto captures this aspect of humanity exquisitely.  The very first real villain that the show produces, a rogue ninja named Zabuza, starts off as being portrayed in an 'embodiment of evil' type of fashion, by being willing and able, without hesitation, to kill children and slaughter innocent people. 


Oh c'mon, that's...that's not TOTALLY evil...

But he shows what goodness still resides in him towards the end of this particular series when his rogue partner, Haku, is killed while defending him from the protagonists.  Zabuza seems unfazed by Haku's death at first, but the main character, obviously named Naruto, reminds him of how much Haku cared for Zabuza, protected him and wanted to be by his side, despite how terrible Zabuza has treated him and how much he used him over the years.

That is when, to the surprise of many viewers, Zabuza began to cry.




A man who committed so many grave sins and even took pleasure in doing so nonetheless built up some semblance of a deep friendship with Haku, and the loss of such a friend broke him down.   It was a truly beautiful and heart-wrenching moment.

That sort of realism in character is what we can see in this show, and that is but one example.  Deathnote, a story about a teenager who gains the ability to kill anyone by writing their name down in a book, dives far beyond the classic trope of good vs. evil and challenges the character and the viewer to question what is in fact good and evil.  Does the end justify the means?  If you had the ability to stop someone from committing a grave moral action, would you ?  And what are the consequences of doing so?



Sword Art Online, which focuses on a group of people trapped by a videogame designer in a virtual reality game he created, addresses the relationship between humans and technology on a level rarely seen in our computer-obsessed world.  What is the difference between the real world and a world created by a computer?  If a person lives in the latter, does that ultimately become their real world, or is it always a false world regardless of their perception of it? 



These are the types of questions that many anime shows address and attempt to answer.  And they are not simply brought up in a particular episode or season; such themes are the very foundation of the show and are infused into the entirety of the basic plot.  Thus it is impossible in many cases to avoid the philosophical and logical discussion that the show creates.

'That is all awesome,' you might be thinking, 'but why is such a thing that important?  What is the big deal about such discussions?' 

I would respond by asking: is there anything that is a bigger deal than this?  The importance of such discussions and questions is too great to be ignored, for they are paramount to our growth as individuals, as a society and as a human race. 

Perhaps we are not used to this in this day in age, such frank and open debate and discourse concerning morality, proper living, and the essence of things.  Perhaps we need more of that. 

That is why I am not a fan of most television shows, whether they be cartoons or live action.  The majority of them, especially cartoons, do not have any educational or fruitful dialogue in this regard; they are mindless entertainment.  Such things do have their place and can be enjoyable, but they should not make up the bulk of our television viewership.  And it seems like they currently do.



This is not to say that this is universally true nor is it to say that all anime shows search for these deep discussions of life.  It is to say, however, that anime shows on average interact more with real life issues and situations then most other shows. 

If you do not believe me then I sincerely ask you: when was the last time you felt challenged about your beliefs when you watched a television show?  When was the last time you thought of something you did not think of before, or reflected on something that has slipped your mind for a while?  If you have been watching the majority of the television shows that are out there, then most likely the answer will be apparent.

The senseless fanfare that is rampant among all areas of the entertainment industry, but especially in television, is staggering to me.  Such oversimplified tropes are both tiring and boring.

That is why I love anime; it is more often then not a fresh break from the monotony of thoughtlessness in today's current programs.  I enjoy the opportunity to think about something I never thought of before in a way I never thought of it before.  I enjoy even having my own worldview and beliefs challenged in such a way.  There are some anime shows I have watched that have directly contradicted my own Christian beliefs; but they either help me grow in my beliefs, help me abandon those aspects of my beliefs that are false, or challenge me to think about my beliefs in a way I have never have.  And to do so with interesting characters and a gripping plot is the icing on the cake.

If you do not believe me, or if you want to give it a try yourself, then I would suggest watching one of the three anime shows I mentioned above as a starting point.  But even if you do not want to give it a shot, or you do and you find you do not like it, at the very least question whether or not what you are watching now really benefits you in a way that is meaningful.  If it does then stick with it.  But if it doesn't then ask yourself: is there something I can replace this with that will both entertain me and help me cultivate my self

Anime is a tool of development for me.  What is yours?

Sunday, July 12, 2015

Gay Marriage from Justice Kennedy

As of the writing of this blog, it was several weeks ago that gay marriage was legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In a 5-4 decision, it was found that gay marriage is constitutional and that there is no legal basis for not allowing same sex couples to be legally married to each other.

Much discussion has gone back and forth between those who are for and those who are against same sex marriage after this ruling fell into place, some of it very worth-while and some of it very harmful and hurtful.

What I would like to focus on in this particular post is the actual opinion piece itself written by the Supreme Court, and in particular the arguments that Justice Kennedy and the four other Supreme Court Justices who favored legalizing same sex marriage provide to defend their claim. 

If you have not done so yet I recommend reading the entire opinion here.  I'm sure many people have not done so, but it is important and necessary to understand the reasoning behind the 5 justices' decision to vote in favor of legalization and the remaining 4 justices decision to dissent from it.



So what are the arguments that Justice Kennedy gives us to explain why same sex marriage should be legalized?  In brief, he argues that there are 'four principles and traditions' that show that 'the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same sex couples' (Obergefell v. Hodges, Opinion of the Court, p. 12).  Thus, these four principles and traditions are crucial to Kennedy's arguments; if they truly do apply, under the Constitution, to marriage of opposite sex couples and same sex couples have these same four principles in their relationship then, so the argument goes, there is no legal reason to deny the right to marry to same sex couples.  Let's break these principles down and see if they make sense.

1.  AUTONOMY

'A first premise of the Court's relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy' (p. 12).  Kennedy brings up a case that legalized interracial marriage in part on this very basis of autonomy (p. 12).  Quoting a state Supreme Court, Kennedy continues that the '"decision whether and whom to marry is among life's momentous acts of self-definition"' (p. 13).  'There is dignity' he says later, 'in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices' (p. 13)

There is at least one major problem with the implementation of this principle, which is that it assumes too much.  For instance, the legal right for people of different races to be autonomous in their marriage choice is brought up numerous times in this particular section.  The parallel is implicit, but obvious.  However, such a parallel needs more of an argument than this based on the very words quoted above.  Kennedy gives us no distinctive reason why the same logic cannot be applied to only two men or two women.  Why isn't there dignity in the bond between 1 man and 2 women or 1 woman who wanted to marry herself?  Why wouldn't the decision of 5 men to marry each other be, for them, among life's 'momentous acts of self-definition'?  There is nothing in the statements made by Justice Kennedy concerning autonomy that are applied to same sex couples that cannot also be applied to polygamous couples or any other combination of people who seek to become married. 

Keep in mind what I am arguing here.  I am not saying that the legalization of same sex marriage will lead down a slippery slope.  I am saying that Kennedy's argument is a logical fallacy that, when applied consistently, proves much more then what he, and virtually everyone else for that matter, would like it to prove or thinks it should prove.  This principle of autonomy that Justice Kennedy uses here to support same sex marriage can be applied to literally any form of relationship, including those relationships that virtually everybody understands to have no right to marriage.

2.  INTIMACY AND COMMITTMENT

'A second principle in the this Court's jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individual' (p. 13).  Kennedy explains this more in depth, articulating that marriage 'offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other' (p. 14).  He then goes on to argue, 'As this court held in Laurence, same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association.  Lawrence invalidated laws that made same-sex intimacy a criminal act...But while Lawrence confirmed a dimension of freedom that allows individuals to engage in intimate association without criminal liability, it does not follow that freedom stops there.  Outlaw to outcast may be a step forward, but it does not achieve the full promise of liberty' (p. 14).

The main problem with this argument is that it commits the same mistake as the previous argument concerning 'autonomy' does.  Kennedy talks in this section about marriage being between two people, but based on statements made in this very opinion about how the institution of marriage is subject to change, no reason is given as to why it must be between two people.  Why not three?  Everything mentioned in this section about 'hope of companionship' and 'intimate association' exists in relationships consisting of more than or less than two people. 

3.  PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

'A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education' (p. 14).  'By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents' relationship, marriage allows children "to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives"' (p. 15).  Taking this and adding that same-sex couples raise children in nurturing and love homes, Kennedy concludes that 'excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry.  Without the recognition stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser....The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples' (p. 15). 

There are two issues with this argument.  One of them is (you guessed it) the same as with the other two principles.  If children have three parents, don't they 'suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser' because their parents are unable to legally marry?  Based on the way Kennedy words his argument, there is no justifiable reason why his logic cannot and should not apply to such a scenario.

The second issue with this argument is that it commits another logical fallacy known as an appeal to consequences.  It is a type of red herring fallacy in which a person seeks to reveal positive or negative consequences of a particular action to support their conclusion, even though such consequences do not necessarily prove such a conclusion.  There are many laws, after all, that end up creating negative consequences to various groups of people.  Some of these laws change because of that, but it is always combined with an implicit argument that the law has an obligation, for one reason or another, to protect such people in a particular way.  The Court has no obligation, for instance, to make marriage between three people legal simply because children might feel a certain harm as a result of their three parents not being allowed to legally marry; other argumentation would have to be provided in such a case to warrant the legalization of marriage between three people.  The same applies to same-sex marriage.  Just because a negative consequence may come about as a result of same-sex couples not being able to be legally married, that does not necessarily mean that same-sex marriage should be made legal.  Kennedy needs to, at the very least, add more to this in order to make it a valid argument.

4.  SOCIAL ORDER

'Fourth and finally, this Court's cases and the Nation's traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order' (p. 16).  'Just as a couple vows to support each other' Kennedy says, 'so does society pledge to support the couple, offering symbolic recognition and material benefits to protect and nourish the union' (p. 16).  Kennedy then states that 'there is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle.  Yet by virtue of there exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage.  This harm results in more then just material burdens' (p.17). 

There are three problems with the use of this final principle.  One is that Kennedy, for the fourth time, does not apply his argument where it must logically go.  Everything argued here can apply to three people who all want to marry each other, or one person who wants to marry herself, and nothing that Kennedy says disputes that.

Two, he repeats another fallacy that he committed in his previous argument by arguing about the 'harm' that befalls same-sex couples as a result of not having various social benefits that opposite-sex married couples have.  Do such bad consequences necessarily mean that same-sex couples should have the right to marry?  Three people who want to become married to each other suffer from the same bad consequences; does that mean that they should be given the right to marry?

Lastly, it begs the question, a logical fallacy where an argument assumes the very point that it is trying to prove.  Kennedy does this by stating that 'there is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle', but he does not prove that.  In fact, this is the very thing that the Court is trying to figure out, if same-sex couples should be treated equally in the social order with opposite-sex couples in marriage by having the legal right to marry.  Thus he simply asserts the very thing that the Court is trying to prove in order to...prove his point. 



These are the four principles that Kennedy argues to show that the right to marry is a right that should apply to same-sex couples.  And as you can see above, these four principles do nothing to support such a conclusion.  Thus, Kennedy's ideological and philosophical arguments do not hold up at all under basic scrutiny. 

Now Kennedy does go on to discuss the 14th Amendment, as well as the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Cause that are used throughout the case to establish a right to marry for same-sex couples; he even goes into previous court cases that successfully argued in changing marriage laws as a result of these two clauses.  However, there is not enough information presented in the opinion statement to flesh out the argument in its entirety (though aspects of it are present in the summary that Kennedy makes when comparing discussing the previous court cases); one must refer back to what was argued in the courtroom in order to get a better understanding of this.  To me this is a shame because Kennedy could have made his argument much stronger in his opinion statement if he focused more on this argument rather than on the weak Principle argument. 



It was my contention that Kennedy and the other four judges that sided with him on this issue did not provide any good or valid arguments in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, and I feel like I defended it well.  But I would simply like to add that while I, as a Catholic, do not support the legalization of same-sex marriage one does not have to hold to that position in order to agree with my argument in this post.  In fact, there are many people on the internet and the blogosphere who are in support of same-sex marriage that agree with me in saying that Kennedy argued poorly in his opinion statement. 

Let that be a testament to the importance of arguing well for all of the beliefs that we hold near and dear to our hearts.  For if we cannot, then maybe that is a sign that we need to change our position on the matter.