来拍的会有回拍呦(*^__^*) issue22关于社会楷模

theopenwindow

22 Claim: The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models(楷模，榜样).
Reason: Heroes and role models reveal a society's highest ideals.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
提纲：
（+）观察社会模范来了解社会特点是可行的，每个社会模范随社会、时代的不同而不同
（-）社会模范不一定会代表社会最高典范，一来社会模范带有意识形态作用；二来现在很多年轻人心中的模范是各种明星，他们的包装成分太大了。
（-）即使可以代表最高典范，社会模范也不是了解社会的最好办法，毕竟，他们是少数，真正接触社会，真实反映社会面貌的是普通群众。

The issue is insightful, but it is not full of truth. We don't doubt that observing role models will help get some ideas about the society. But we are suspicious whether the role models really represent the highest ideals. And we are also not sure whether it is the best way to understand the character of a society.


Admittedly, role moles have different characters in various times and types of society. From this angel, we could notice the properties of a society though role models. Take the China in different times for example. In the feudal times, most dynasties set Confucius as role model for his Confucianism. Then we know, in the feudal China
, the scholars tried to work as officers and scarified themselves for the development of the country. And we also see that the decorum was taken seriously, which of the two points are important in Confucius' ideas. But for the China

from 1966 to 1766, the Cultural Reform Times, Confucius was broke down, and nother heroes in so-called 'eight sample dramas' are set up as new society role models. Then it is clear that the society’s character had changed, which is extreme jingoistic and lacking reason. Based on the said above, it is practical to examine the society from different role models because they can indict the different types and different society’s' need.

However, we must be clear that heroes and role models cannot reveal a society's highest ideals for sure. There are two main reasons for the assertion. First, role models are always 'products' of politics ideology. The government set society heroes to meet their demand. That is to say, through setting role models, governments can guide the mass do what they expect, with the goal to confirm their stable situation and politics command. That is why most of the role models from history to today, whatever foreign countries or our country, the models are all sacrificed themselves to the construction of the state's prosperity. Second, there appears another kind of role models among the mass nowadays, different from the heroes set by the government. They are sorted of super stars in the entertainments. Even they enthralled millions of young people who seldom focus on the mainstream models, the stars are shining on the screens or stages because of comedian packaging. Few know what are near the surface of the super stars. So based on the two points, the role models can not represent a society's highest ideals.


Furthermore, even though they would reveal a society's superior ideals, can they offer the reality about a society? On the opposite, they only occupied a extremely small percentage point. And it's the common people who are the prime power to build up the society and who can deprecate the true features of the society. Not the best one, not the most famous one, and far from the richest one, the ordinary people, including peasants, workers, scholars, have the powerful voice to describe the society, because they can really experience the real atmosphere of the society and what the ordinary life is like.


Therefore, observing models are far from the best way to understand the character of a society. Getting touch with the normal people is the right way to know a society to the truth.

theopenwindow

所以后面又举了第二个方面，super stars 各种明星，是最为占据大众眼光的model呀，可能是写的太不明显了，过于匆忙了
语言上怎么样，还那么惨不忍睹吗

竹林中人

然后你把英雄或者模范理解为一定是得到政府认定的，这失之偏颇，其实只要是大众能认同的都可以啊

竹林中人

你的思路是很不错的，问题在于，第一点中举孔子和样板戏的例子不太好，人家不一定知道，要讲明白你这几句话是不够的，倒不如举一个相对现代点的大众的，比如说朗朗，比如说章子怡，比如说钱学森等