Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner’s theory that sexuality constantly appears in society often confuses the public realm. When an individual thinks of engaging with sexual activities, a local park or a subway cart does not come to mind. Sexual endeavors occur in the bedroom; a space where surveillance cannot survive. Since sex occurs in a private space and society has not normalized public discussions of sex, how can sexuality effortlessly seep its way into daily life? Heteronormativity drives the social structures of societies. Heteronormativity- which pulls its ideas from heterosexual relations, “produces in almost every aspect of the forms and arrangements of social life” (Berlant and Warner 2605). Heteronormativity translates itself into the public realm through high school prom posters that encourage boys to ask girls to the dance, normalized “compliments” such as “that boy is going to break so many girls’ hearts when he grows up,” and mainstream television shows that depict a comedic nuclear family. People consume these outlets and begin to believe that they also must engage with heterosexual behavior.

Furthermore, sexuality manifests itself through the presentation of families in the public realm. By picking apart the literal components of a family, marriage between a man and a woman exemplifies a heterosexual public pairing. Now advancing from marriage to a couple having children, their children are literal evidence of sexual activities that have taken place. Additionally, “familialism signifies belonging to society” (Berlant and Warner 2605). Nuclear families will always have space in society because they are contributing to the heteronormative ideals of society. The operations of a family like: parents saving money for their future, parents placing their children in school, and parents executing their taxes differently because of their children, all point to the display of sexuality.

“Heteronormative conventions of intimacy create issues because it blocks the building of nonnormative sexual cultures” (Berlant and Warner 2604). Since society has created rigid parameters for people to experience sexuality, queer individuals do not have the space to participate in the public realm. The solution to this problem would be the creation of a queer counter public that facilitated queer ideas. However, in the 1990s, “the New York City Council passed a new zoning law that shut down the adult businesses that populated Christopher Street” (Berlant and Warner 2602). As a result, “gay men were forced to find spaces on the outskirts of the city where they had a great chance of being attacked” (Berlant and Warner 2603). Though alternative realms were created so queer individuals could engage in sex, discuss sex, and figure out the safety components of their sexual desires, society restricted the parameters of these environments. Heteronormativity prevents other sexual expressions from creating their own realms.

From 1760 to 1840, the industrial revolution introduced a new manufacturing and labor process to many countries. Further, countries who were engaged with the industrial revolution experienced a change in their social and economic environment. Industrialization brought along the systems of capitalism: which allows private corporations to have control over their means of production and their profits. One business owner does not have the resources to make a profit; therefore, a working class is needed to perform different tasks that all contribute to the success of a company. However, Karl Marx, a political theorist, speaks on the imbalance between the working class and the capitalist. Economic life from the perspective of the worker is, “ the worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range”(Marx and Engels 653). The products that a worker creates does not belong to the individual, it belongs to their boss. 

Let’s consider a hypothetical circumstance where an individual named Phoenix works for a successful summer camp. Monday through Friday he spends eight, sometimes ten hours, organizing activities for his group, singing camp songs for the children’s enjoyment, and ensuring all of his children’s safety. He is the one who sacrifices his summer to ensure that the kids who go to this summer camp are enjoying themselves, yet he does not receive any credit for his work. Yes, a parent might tip him money because their child said “Phoenix is the best counselor ever!”. Yes, he might be promoted next summer to a supervisor because of his excellence. However, George, the owner of this summer camp, is the one who becomes wealthier the more wealth that Phoenix is producing. Phoenix’s work is a reflection of George because he is the face of the summer camp; so if Phoenix is “amazing” the actual amazing one must be George since he is the one in charge. Though George pops into the summer camp activities whenever he is in the mood for it and he spends a majority of his summer lounging around. A liberal-capitalist society will look past Phoenix’s work, look past the dedication of the working class, and immediately praise the capitalist though they perform minimal work.

Marx discusses economic life from the perspective of the worker and the perspective of the owner to highlight the unjust relationship between these two parties. First off, he wants to explicitly share that there is an established relationship between worker and owner. A false mindset that has been embedded into the working class; workers believe that if they dedicate hours into their job and produce the best product possible, then they will be rewarded for their work. This mindset promotes a worker’s independence and the notion that in a liberal- capitalist society, they are in charge of their own work. Even though a business owner can drill into their workers that they are recognized for their work, Marx reveals the nature of capitalism: “… the fact that laboour is external to the worker ie., it does not belong to his essential being, that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself…”(Marx and Engels 654). Marx wants to deconstruct how the working class is supposed to feel towards capitalism. Furthemore, Marx wants people to be aware that in a liberal-capitlaist society, an owner will always reap the benefits of their worker.

Options can torture a person. When an individual has to make a decision, there is pressure to make the “correct” choice; however, who has jurisdiction over which course of action creates a better outcome? A grand decision lies in the indecisive mind of an individual. Decision making or a final judgment is an aspect of daily life. Whether a decision is reached in thirty seconds because a person has already established their favorite drink at a cafe or, the decision is reached in thirty days because a person can’t decide whether to date someone or not- my best advice would be to not, a human’s brain is constantly guiding an individual through their lives. Furthermore, a person’s mind is filled with different scenarios; people must wrestle with different possibilities to reach the best outcome. Let’s pull on the decision to date for a moment. An individual might create a pros and cons list to map out the multiple ways a relationship can go and if they are content with the inevitable uncertainty of dating.

This constant diving into scenarios is exactly what Captain Vere in the novella, Billy Budd, was faced with when a crime is committed on his ship. Billy Budd, who is a handsome and polite sailor, strikes Claggart, a skeptical higher official, and kills him. Claggart’s evil or highly analytical tendencies lead him to believe that Billy Budd was involved in mutiny. Since Billy Budd’s stutter prevented him from articulating his defense to Claggart’s claim, he resorted to violence. This violent act left Captain Vere in a difficult position. He is forced sit down with the “differences within” and the “differences between” to make an accurate judgment.

The text tells us that “differences within” are related to multiple traits that exist in a person. For example, “… (Billy as divided between conscious submissiveness and unconscious hostility, Vere as divided between understanding father and military authority) …” (Johnson 2274).  The traits that make up an individual are oftentimes selectively expressed. Even though a person’s righteous qualities are displayed to their peers, it does not mean that they always have good intentions. Differences within also emphasizes how one does not exist without the other. Goodness can only be produced from knowing and having evil traits. Furthermore, the text reveals that “differences between” are face value/ broad observations. An example of this would be known binaries such a masculine versus feminine or authority versus criminal.

Melville’s text reveals that these differences contribute to the act of judging. Through language and a person’s actions, the differences within become performative when they are differences between. Barbara Johnson writes, “The political context in Billy Budd is such that on all levels the differences within… are subordinated with differences between…” (Johnson 2274). Captain Vere recognized the differences within his own good and evil qualities to try and understand Billy Budd’s character. He knows that everyone has their excellent and deplorable qualities even if one is hidden away. Additionally, Captain Vere is Billy Budd’s father, meaning struggles with his duties as a father to protect his son and his responsibility to keep order on the ship. Further, he considered the differences between, which gave him the lens of seeing the actions as a victim and a perpetrator circumstance. Through this lens, he understood the horridness of one of his highest men murdered. The differences within laid out an understanding of his role as a captain and his role as a father and the differences between are the two routes that reach a final jurisdiction. He can either side with Billy (the murderer) and justify it with the notion that his evil qualities had been displayed, but he is generally a good person; or he can side with Claggart (the victim) and see it as a face value crime. His judging process is evidence of Veer considering the knowable (guilty or innocent/ differences between) and the questionable (everyone has just and unjust thoughts/ differences within).

Reaching a decision is completely arbitrary, because of the conflicting nature of humans. Humans must consider the knowable and the questionable and both provide keen information to plan. Why a person reached a decision is not of importance. The process of understanding how the differences within and the differences between influence a person, spits out a decision. In the end, those factors helped him prosecute Billy Budd.

Language is how humans are able to communicate with one another. Since everyone has the capability of understanding and speaking a language, some scientists don’t recognize the value of studying semiology (the study of signs and their interpretation which is a core aspect of language). Language is based upon the fluid relationship between the signifier and the signified. People can view a tree with wilted leaves and discuss their feelings towards it because language has created a space to share ideas. Scientists tend to forget that language is not “a name-giving system” (Saussure 851). The true nature of language can reveal a tremendous mystery, the tendencies of all individuals. Ferdinand De Saussure wants to deconstruct the notion, “language is a simple naming process”, and appreciate the complexities of language to showcase human nature as erratic. 

Psychologists and philosophers have taken steps to understanding how the human brain operates and actions executed by people, respectively; however, certain components of language can demonstrate the convoluted nature of humans. First off, language and individuals have an extensive connection because language follows an individual from the moment that they are born to their last moment of life. As an individual develops and experiences different points of their lives, their language is also going to evolve. A fifth grader’s language is not the same as a college professor’s language and it is a result of their different points in life. A fifth grader has not been exposed to a wide range of vocabulary, they have not endured high school and college level courses, and they have not interacted with as many people in comparison to a college professor. New words and phrases are picked up as a person enters different stages of their lives. Also, it is important to acknowledge that language is not completely arbitrary. Due to different circumstances that an individual can encounter, it can be difficult to pinpoint how and why a person’s language has changed. However, every language has a set of grammar rules that are evident in a person’s speech. A fifth grader and a college professor both deliver sentences, questions, and different kinds of phrases to speak with other people. In addition, they are both able to view an image and draw their own conclusions based upon it. Yes, their use of language and vocabulary could be different, but there are grammar rules set in place to guide conversations. Regardless if an individual has been studying language for the past decade or if an individual has just graduated elementary school, they both use language to communicate their ideas and understand the world through signifers and the signified. 

Now stepping away from the individual, the characteristics of a language came to be because of different communities. Language is a combination of arbitrariness and structure. The arbitrariness stems from the relationship between words and concepts. The relation between the signifier (word or sound-image) and the signified (concept) is random. For example, there is no sturdy reasoning as to why the word “horse” is related to the concept of a horse. Furthermore, “the signs used in writing are arbitrary; there is no connection, for example, between the letter t and the sound that it designates” (Saussure 861). Based upon these examples, it is evident that language is based upon differences. Since, “words do not stand for preexisting concepts, there are differences in meaning from one language to the next” (Saussure 859). Different communities come together to create different social contracts that bring meaning to a particular image. Also, different languages have different grammar rules that are set in place. Though language is mutable by nature, the meaning of a word can not change overnight. People have to come together, evaluate how and why the word is changing, see how the change is applied and seen in their own fluid lives, and socially approve the change. The social contract different communities have created for words are proof of the structure that is consistent through language. People are heavily involved in their languages. 

A concrete component of all humans is their use of language, regardless of the changes that occur in their lives. The innate relationship between language and humans allows for linguistics to understand how the complexities in language are mirrored in the complexities that surround a human. Language is organic, it is always evolving because humans are always evolving.  Language demonstrates how no one can accurately predict an individual’s thoughts and actions. An individual’s words can reveal a person’s thoughts and motive behind their actions. Further, writing (a tangible expression) helps linguists understand complicated humans. I say complicated because even with all of those resources, there is a possibility that someone could be lying. So why try to dissect the actions of a human through language? Because it is fascinating how a human is able to be concrete, yet fluid at the same time. 

Nietzsche’s theory on truth and lies tackles the tendencies of humans. The opening paragraphs of “On Truth and Lying in a Nonmoral Sense”, discuss an alternate universe where clever animals have invented cognition, however, their achievements were not able to be celebrated because of an explosion that literally and metaphorically obliterated this world. Now this information is far-fetched, and it already leaves the reader (including myself) in a state of confusion. I immediately asked myself, what do brilliant animals in a distant land have to do with the nature of truth and lies? As I patiently navigated through the rest of Nietzsche’s ideas, it became apparent that Nietzsche possibly started off his writing with a bizarre scenario to demonstrate the stubbornness that is found in an individual’s ideas. After unpacking the events that occurred on the strange planet, Nietzsche writes, “so the proudest man of all, the philosopher, wants to see, on all sides, the eyes of the universe trained, as through telescopes, on his thoughts and deeds.” (764). Even though the storyline Nietzsche used is extreme, it captures how people think of ideas in their head that are true, yet the public believes that their idea is insane… a lie. For example, there was a time where European scholars believed that the Earth was flat. Since this was an accepted idea amongst most European scholars, everyone else who argued that the Earth is a sphere were seen as liars. Whenever individuals attempted to explain why the Earth is a sphere, the other European scholars were left bewildered. Similar to how I dismissed the idea of an alternate universe that was destroyed, European scholars dismissed anyone who tried to invalidate their belief.

Today, most individuals understand the Earth is not flat, however, the bigger picture is that Nietzsche is trying to showcase how ideas are not certain because of human pride. Since everyone wants their ideas to be accepted and are not opened to alternate conclusions that are based off a concept, it becomes difficult to distinguish between a truth and a lie. Therefore, Nietzsche claims that “truths are illusions that we have forgotten are illusions.” (768). Furthermore, Nietzsche mentions “fog that surrounds human eyes,” (765) and that fog or pride distorts truth and creates a world consumed by false realities.

Let’s step away from historical European scholars arguing over the Earth and consider how the truth is almost impossible to find nowadays because of social media. Social media has created an environment where it is extremely easy to compare yourself to people. Yet, it is not a fair comparison because oftentimes people will compare their worse version of themselves with a “perfect” image that is seen online. An example of this would be if someone posts on their social media a picture of their grades and it is all A’s. Another person who did not get all A’s and views this post will automatically believe that they are dumb or everyone else around them is achieving their academic dream while they are struggling. The person who did not get all A’s fails to realize that the other individual had nights where they also felt dumb, or they failed an assignment in the beginning of the semester. Life is not perfect, and everyone goes through their own challenges, yet social media provides a space where an individual is able to craft their “flawless life”. People do not tend to post negative content related to their lives because they want to keep a certain facade. However, this distorts the truth about their lives because a life consists of ups and downs. Nietzsche would view social media as an affirmation for his belief that pride creates lies which means that the truth can never exist. Individuals tend to create false realities and become consumed in them to hide from people who challenge their ideas.