GRE Issue Topic 116

Sample 1:

Cultures throughout history have been analyzed based on the artifacts they left behind, including architecture, art, writing, household items, and clothing. Archeologists have been able to extrapolate information about a culture's government, scientific knowledge, standard of living, diet, and cosmology. Burial mounds, pyramids, and cave drawings reveal the relative importance of and reverence accorded to individuals in the cultures that produced them. When history began to be recorded in a more systematic manner, writers left records of those who became heroes and role models. Those heroes and role models certainly influenced their cultures, from fashion to morals. That influence, however, was fleeting, and it was not long before someone new became the "flavor of the month". In fact, it may have been the events in history that influenced which men and women were elevated to the status of heroes and role models. The rapid pace of change today makes it nearly impossible to analyze a culture’s character based on who is selected to represent the ideal for, as Andy Warhol is credited with saying, everyone will enjoy fifteen minutes of fame.

Charles Barkley, former NBA bad boy, said, “I am not a role model.” Professional athletes have often been held to higher standards than people in the general population because of their visibility and high salaries. The paradigm for athletes has always been clean–cut, upstanding, and ethically superior. Before media coverage of every athlete’s action became so pervasive, it is likely that those athletes did not always behave well in private or in public, but nobody knew about their bad acts. Parent held athletes up as examples of the kinds of people they wanted their children to become. After all, to reach the ranks of the pros, athletes had to be dedicated to their sport.

Children were led to believe that, if they adopted the work ethic and character of professional athletes, they, too, could become supremely successful. When Americans discovered that professional athletes have feet of clay, there was a huge outcry. Charles Barkley’s statement was followed by his declaring that parents should be role models for their children. That works well for children whose parents do set a good example, but to whom do the others turn for lessons in good character? Certainly, not to Tiger Woods, whose string of infidelities led to pain and embarrassment for his family, nor to Ron Artest, who engaged in a brawl with a fan during a basketball game.

When the people of the United States became disenchanted with the direction that government was taking during the most recent Bush administration, a young senator from Illinois took up the challenge to lead this country using the mantra of change. Barack Obama declared, “We can do it!” Since his election, the global economy has become precarious, and people in the US are unemployed and losing their homes to foreclosure. Citizens, once filled with hope for the future at the hands of this new president, have become disillusioned, and Barack Obama is no longer seen as the hero they hoped he would be. Basing the character of the United States on the promises made by its presidential candidates is therefore clearly a poor metric, as these candidates do not truly know what kind of change, they will be able to effect as President until they are elected into office. Additionally, candidates are likely to paint a picture of an idealized society during their campaigns, which may not reflect the current state of the society at the time.

What are more likely subjects of analysis to determine the character of a society are those institutions or ideas that are more permanent. Rather than looking at the people who have temporarily held the position of hero or role model, look at the form of government that has served a population. Read its constitution. Do they allow the fair and equal treatment of a nation’s citizenry? Are punishment and reward meted out in equal measure to citizens of all races, colors, creeds, and genders? The thread that runs through the history of a culture is a better indicator of that culture’s character.

Sample 2:

The character of a society is determined by the character of the people who form that society. A society idolizes certain men and women as its heroes and heroines depending on what these people have done for the society. These people may be politicians or they may have brought about a radical change in the way people live in that society. Irrespective of what they have done for the society, their characters cannot determine the character of the entire society as these people will have their own individual characteristics that cannot reflect the characters of all the people who are a part of that society. This is because each individual has his own perception about the things around him and this perception shapes his character. There may be some cases wherein people try to emulate their idols, but this does not mean that the entire society’s character can be understood by studying the character of its heroes and heroines.

The news channels and the newspapers are always following well-known people for a peep into their personal lives. Lady Diana was adored and loved by millions of people across the world. She was the idol of not only her country but also many other countries around the world. There have been numerous occasions where people have maligned her name by associating her with scandals even after her death. If these accusations are true, then do the societies that worship her have the same character? What about the heroes and heroines who are respected and loved for the characters that they portray in movies? It is a well known fact that the lives of models, actors and artists are laced with scandals and controversies. Some of them are known drug-addicts and others lead amorous lives. Does the society that idolizes these people have the same character? It would be wrong to assume that the society has the same character as it is an accepted fact that these people are liked for their values other than their characters. Therefore, it is not necessary that the entire society behaves in a manner similar to the people who are loved by the masses.

Another example is that of the political leaders who have been elected by the people of a country to lead them. If they have been elected because of their honesty and their patriotism, then does this mean that the entire society is honest? On the contrary, what if one of the politicians is corrupt and unscrupulous? Will this reflect the character of the people who have elected him? The people who have elected this particular politician may be conservative, honest and God-fearing, but it is unfortunate that the true character of the politician whom they have elected as their leader is hidden from them. Even if they can see his true form after he has already been elected, a close examination of his character would reveal a character that would be far from that of the society that has chosen him.

In view of the above, it can easily be concluded that the character of a society and that of the people idolized by the society are not related in any way whatsoever. There may be some cases wherein someone has tried to imitate the character of the person he considers a hero. However, on the whole, the character of a society is independent of the character of the people chosen as its heroes and heroines. In other words, the character of the heroes and heroines is not an indication of the character of the society that has chosen them.