This is a very interesting statement. To claim that science and a biological process can be redefined for the sake of subjectivity is not a false statement, because science isn't necessarily real. It's a concept we've created to explain otherwise unexplainable concepts. We created these equations and laws, they weren't found. So to change a definiton might go against a theory but that theory was also something that was created, so which is technically right?

This section is interesting. It shifts the focus away from this power of surveillance as a means to instill fear and compliance into prisoners as a punishment to a more modern look that virtually every institution has. Even though we are not deserving of a penalization, we are treated as such now. Modern society has been taken over by these mechanisms of power and now our schools, hospitals, and workplaces are not safe.

The panoptic modality of power refers to the power that is not tangible, for say, like the way a judicial or political court is. In the two sides of power, one side is the power that can be grasped and won and the other is the mechanisms that lead to the survellance of a society; which is more hidden. The unease this brings is where the power comes in: when are we being watched and when are we not? That is the power it holds.

In nature, there are no laws, so ownership does not exist. If you gain everything you have from war, just as the man's area you took it from did before, then nature is the absence of permanancy and is only a temporary gratification. It also causes fear and paranoia, as now violence and reputation is a cycle the man will have to continue to keep his winnings.

This is also an issue within reading philosophy and that's the lack of imagination. We cannot image a world in which there is no laws, no discoveries, nothing other than our intrinsic nature. We hear about killing, stealing, and war and know that they are morally and legally bad, but what is legal to a man who is bound to no system? What is morality to a man who is nothing but his innate self?

To proclaim that wisdom is something learned and not innate is truthful, and allows us to realize that being knowledgeable is something anyone can do with enough time. When the elderly say they know better than you, it is only true for that moment, since when you are their age, you can be of equal knowledge as them.

As long as there is a civilization, regardless of its economic standards, there will be aggression. For us, we tend to love to hate. Even if one would assimilate, people would still find something to nitpick for no reason but to hate the other. An example would be African Americans and Africans. Even though people outside of those two spheres would see the two as the same or neighbors in America, they are disgusted by being compared to each other. Africans tell their children not to act like African Americans and catergorize them as "hood" or "ghetto" while Arican Americans yearn to be seen as more "American" and therefore civilized than "Africans". At the end of the day, however, this hatred threatens to dismantle the bond that Black people should have in America.

it's interesting to note that he believes that justice is needed for a civilization, yet it is these very things that make people upset. Is this because we still have that innate "Id" within us that thrives with no laws, just as the "primitives" he describes as happy in the beginning of the chapter?

The issue that people see within the marginalized is a lack of "labor" disregarding the amount of work they put into find this labor. They truly believe that because they made it in society, anyone else can. Therefore those in power, usually white men, cannot fathom race and gender becoming chains rooting people into poverty and marginalization. At the end of the day, they aren't lazy, you're just extremely priveleged.

I think the example she provides is excellent! Despite all of us being affected by Capitalism in some form, what people will see first is your race or gender. The amount of respect you recieve being contingent to your work, then, is really something only white people can face. At the end of the day, no matter how hard I try to climb the ladder and become a "professional", I will always be seen as "black" and "woman" first, and therefore be subjected to people's prejudices about those two groups. It becomes an exhausting cycle that creates animosity and jealously with the white man.

I think it's interesting that the author speaks of how you are percieved and how that can affect your exploitation. If you are a woman, you often never get the credit that is due, even within the confines you've created. Women's role in society will never equate men's. However that does not negate class and how men can also be worth nothing more than their labor in a society. This allows Capitalism to flourish due to both sides unable to see how the other could be "opressed" and instead fighting over who has it worse.