Overview: Your first step in developing Project Part One for the course is to identify the two artifacts you want to compare atheme that is common to both artifacts. While you will analyze and compare these artifacts in Theme: Examining the Humawant to make some initial observations. In this step, explain how you see the theme expressed in both of your artifacts. Thon how the theme itself is connected or relevant to you personally. For example, is this a theme you find particularly inspirithis theme been particularly relevant to a past experience?
Prompt: Choose two cultural artifacts to analyze. These artifacts may take the form of any artistic medium, such as literatumusic, film, dance, painting, and sculpture, and so on. However, it is important to choose two artifacts that have been creadifferent artists and were created during different time periods (ex. separated by at least 50 years). Then, identify an initial themes) that is common to both of your chosen artifacts. You will analyze these artifacts and their expression of the identifin Theme: Examining the Humanities and Theme: Impact of the Humanities.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
I. Describe the cultural artifacts that you have chosen. Consider questions such as these in your response: What is the namof the artifact? Who is the author or artist? What is the date or time period when the artifact was created? What is the cultuor physical setting of the artifact? In addition, you could consider including a photograph or image of each cultural artifact, visual artifacts.
II. Identify at least one common theme that will serve as the framework of your exploration document. How is the theme exyour artifacts?
III. Reflect on how the theme you identified is related to your personal experience. For instance, you could discuss how theexpression of the theme in your cultural artifacts is connected to you personally
The two artifacts I am comparing for Project Part One of this course are the poem “Human Family” by Maya Angelou, and the song “Same Love” by Macklemore. The common theme across both of these is one of love and acceptance, regardless of our differences. In “Human Family”, Angelou expresses her hope of equality among all people, regardless of race or sexual orientation: “I note the obvious differences/Between each sort and type/But we are more alike, my friends/Than we are unalike.” (Angelou 2020). Similarly, in “Same Love” Macklemore calls for understanding and compassion while acknowledging that discrimination still exists: “We press play don’t press pause/Progress gracefully /Lose hate not weight…If you preach hate at the service those words aren’t anointed /That holy water that you soak in has been poisoned.” (Macklemore & Lewis 2012).
This theme resonates personally with me because I have experienced its power to bring us together as human beings when it is embraced. My own family reflects many different backgrounds yet we find strength in our diversity rather than distance from it. As a result, I am passionate about creating spaces for individuals to explore their identities openly without fear or judgement which this message speaks to powerfully.
In sum, the two artifacts I will be comparing for Project Part One both express a powerful theme about love and acceptance despite our differences. This is something that profoundly resonates with me on a personal level given how much beauty can come from embracing diversity within my own family network.
when predicting attitude stability and the corresponding behavior and judgments of those behaviors. Moreover, Gantman and Van Bavel (2014) found evidence for a moral pop-out effect, such that participants were more likely to recognize moral words over nonmoral words in a lexical decision task.
With regard to group evaluations, it has been shown that moral judgments of one’s ingroup are more important than judgments of competence or sociability (Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007). Perceiving one’s ingroup as moral has been shown to lead to more positive outcomes of a group’s self-concept, such that positive moral evaluations of one’s ingroup leads to less distancing from that group and greater group identification (Leach et al., 2007). This line of research further extends to the evaluation of outgroups, with the main finding that moral traits are weighted more heavily when members of one group form impressions about an outgroup (Brambilla et al., 2013a). A limitation of this line of research is its focus on conscious, controlled perceptions of morality. Unconscious perception enjoys an extensive influence on social behavior (e.g., Greenwald & Banaji, 1995), and as such studying morality at the unconscious level may reveal interesting differences in explicit versus implicit evaluations of outgroups.
While previous research has provided a solid foundation for understanding just how important moral judgments are to individuals, more work needs to be done to fully examine how quickly moral judgments are made. Limited work has studied the role of implicit cognition in moral judgments, though there is reason to believe that moral judgments may be susceptible to nonconscious influences (e.g., Ma, Vandekerckhove, Baetens, Van Overwalle, Seurinck, & Fias, 2012; Willis & Todorov, 2006). Given that judgments of morality are deemed to be more relevant than other traits when judging whether a target represents a threat (Brambilla et al., 2013b; Willis & Todorov, 2006), we contend that research into the implicit attribution of moral personality traits is warranted to delineate whether morality is attributed automatically or through cognitive processes. This led to our first hypothesis, which predicts that participants will be more likely to recognize moral (versus nonmoral) traits
A spontaneous trait inference (STI) occurs when an individual makes a nonconscious, unintentional judgment about the character of another individual (Winter & Uleman, 1984). These inferences occur