|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:49 am
I am creating this thread as a place to post all the essays I have to complete for college courses. 3nodding You can read and comment if you like, or you can ignore this thread entirely and take the poll as I change it. I'll be changing the poll each new essay I submit. biggrin
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:51 am
“The Importance of Secondary Goals of Education”
When someone says the word “education” most people will tend to think the word “school.” But what is it that makes us identify those two words as being equal? Do children need to go to school to acquire an education? Do all schools provide the same education? What are the advantages and disadvantages to schooling?
Schooling is perhaps the most important aspect of a child’s life. They start attending school when they are very young, and will continue that schooling until they have reached adulthood- and even beyond. The primary goal of schooling is academics- skills such as math, essay writing, projects, scientific knowledge- but a secondary goal of schooling is social interaction and experience. This brings to mind the question, why are social interaction and experience a secondary goal? And why is this secondary goal left, for the most part, unaddressed?
A great deal of weight is placed on academics. This is natural. The knowledge obtained in school is vital to one’s livelihood. Knowing how to add and subtract, how to communicate, and understanding the world around you from a scientific standpoint, are all important factors in a person’s life, especially if that person is to succeed. From the point of view of the older generations, this seems to be common sense, but from a child’s view it probably does not.
What drives a child to learn? Children are generally curious. They ask questions, seek attention, play make-believe, and argue with siblings and friends. Most are rambunctious, sometimes trouble-making, exuberant beings. Or at least they are after school, or during lunch or recess. But stick them in a classroom and they’ll fall asleep, pass notes, and throw paper airplanes- anything to distract the teacher’s- or more importantly, their own- attention away from the subject at hand. What child doesn’t have the memory of going through his or her school day without looking at the clock, counting the seconds and minutes down to the next recess- or better yet, when school gets out? Why is there such a draw to playtime, or that freedom? Isn’t the subject matter in the classroom usually engaging and exciting to learn? Any young child who scores perfect on their spelling test or knows their multiplication tables all by heart, is happy, no, utterly gleeful, and proud of their accomplishments as a job well done. And so are the teachers. So why the difference between academics and play?
“Play helps the animal acquire knowledge about both the potential and the dangers of its world; it sets and becomes the physical arena for exploring new objects and for combining physical activities with sensory experiences in ways that might otherwise remain untried. Play increases the scope of the animal’s experience and the range of its skills, generates a greater sense of control, and allows the animal to test its competence.” (Jamison, 24)
Play is a hard-wired activity in all young creatures- especially humans. We all find a need to play, and it plays an important role in shaping who we become. Jamison also states that “Exuberant play appears to be particularly important in nourishing social affinities in very young animals that later become members of a cohesive social unit.” (22) By playing with others, we learn how to act, how others act, and how to respond to their actions. While this may include tensions or arguments, we are still learning how to deal with those arguments and growing in our personal confidence and ability to resolve problems. As Jamison says “Animals also learn through play how to curb their aggressive instincts toward others of their own kind.” (22)
While academics teach Neocortical- or reasoning- skills, play develops strengths in the Limbic- or emotional- areas. No matter how long a person studied books about solving conflicts or social interactions, were he never to step out into the world to try, he would not know what to do. It’s only through experience that we can learn. A child who has not yet attended school learns how to speak from his parents or other speech interactions. Yet without academics, the child would likely never know how to read or write. Academics give us a furthering from the things we learn from play- or experience- it is what distinguishes us from all other animals. With our brains (and thumbs) we have devised and created a haven for ourselves. However, it seems in our hurry, we have forgotten the importance of what makes us living- that emotional part.
In the common school situation, a child goes to school early in their life. Usually, this begins with Preschool. Preschool is a highly play oriented environment; children learn to count or recite the ABCs, they sing songs together and learn to share building blocks, and paste scraps of paper together with glue. But slowly as the child gets older, the playtime begins to disappear... less time is spent focused on fun activities inside the classroom, recess begins to get shorter, school days begin to get longer, and children begin to be separated into different rooms for different subjects. By the time a child has gotten to high school, free time has been eliminated- unless you count the five minute breaks they get to run to the next class, or the cramped twenty minute lunchbreak. “Taking subjects in a systemized, conveyer-belt way is what one does in high school.” (Sizer 12) Structure is the very root of schooling, especially in higher grades. “Most schools specifically mandate three out of every five courses a student selects. Nearly all of these mandates fall into five areas- English, social studies, mathematics, science, and physical education. On the average, English is required to be taken each year, social studies and physical education three out of the four high school years, and mathematics and science one or two years.” (Sizer 10)
The structurization of schooling, and the rescinding of freedom, is what makes school “boring,” and even ineffective. “Because everyone knows ... that the subject matter itself isn’t that hard. What’s hard, virtually impossible, is beating it into the heads of youngsters who hate every step. The only way we have a ghost of a chance is to hammer away at the stuff bit by bit every day for years. Even then it does not work. Most of the sixth graders are mathematical illiterates.” (Greenberg 194)
The problem is that schools deal with their “secondary goals” the way they deal with academics. Sizer reports a common set of goals in a California high school:
“* Fundamental scholastic achievement... to develop the ability to make decisions, to solve problems, to reason independently, and to accept responsibility for self-evaluation and continuing self-improvement.
* Career and economic competence...
* Citizenship and civil responsibility...
* Competence in human and social relations...
* Moral and ethical values...
* Self-realization and mental and physical health...
* Aesthetic awareness...
* Cultural diversity...” ( cool
The tumult of large words and sheer structure of this list is only the beginning. Many schools have requirements set forth to achieve these goals, such as 25-50 hours of community service in order to graduate. Requirements to abilities that should be a natural progression is borderline insanity.
Perhaps instead schools should try, to their best abilities, to keep the level of structure and control to a minimum. One might argue this would create a rowdy environment, one non-beneficial to learning, but if children learn to interact and solve their conflicts, won’t that behoove them for ethical conduct later in their life? And if they learn ethics, won’t citizenship, self-realization, moral values, and other aforementioned goals, follow thereafter?
“In 1968 a unique experimental school was established in Framingham, Massachusetts.” (Greenberg 187). It was the Sudbury Valley School in which students, aged from as young as four to as old as nineteen, would learn through their own natural inclinations. That is, they took on full responsibility for their own choice of study. Greenberg writes, “Fear of power and authority was what we wanted to abolish from the school. We were not concerned about people having authority. Authority in and of itself can be good or bad, depending on many things. Some situations need persons in authority- an apprentice learning situation, for example, or a business.” Children attending choose the teacher they want to learn from according to what they wish to learn. The pace is up to them, there is no pressure involved if a child does not learn a certain skill at a certain time. “Every graduate of Sudbury Valley who wanted to attend college has a similar story to tell. All were accepted, most to their college of first choice. Many were invited. None had transcripts or any of the standard evaluations or recommendation forms.” (Greenberg 192).
It might seem odd that such an institution would work- or moreover, work well. And yet it does. This only strengthens the argument for a less rigid, structured, regulated schooling. Furthermore, schools should try to embrace the psychological and mental importance of “play” on all age levels, by housing more free time, more enjoyable schooling environments, and more unique and engaging school events- such as dances, rallies, parades, craft workshops, holiday parties, and other things that the students create themselves.
As Jean-Jacques Rousseau puts it, “the activity of the body which seeks development succeeds the activity of the mind which seeks instruction.” (142) This holding true, it stands to reason an endeavor should be made to integrate play with learning, on all levels. At first, play will dominate the body and minds of the children. Emphasis should be placed on creativity, in which the children could play make-believe, have a novel read to them, make arts and crafts with their hands, and build with toys. As they grow older, children will find a natural inclination to their minds, as they have learned through exploration and those memories will make an impression that will influence all their choices forward. These choices will not only reflect the “academic standards” put forth by many institutions, but the secondary goals most schools fail to achieve in lieu of academics. If a child is read a novel that takes their fancy, they will desire to learn how to read those novels themselves, or even learn how to write novels of their own. That is an academic decision. If a child takes place in a school play, they will learn how to act as a whole with their peers, and will desire to become a part of increasingly more fun and interesting “organizations.” That is a social, experience-related decision.
Decisions are made from experience, and experience can only be gained through “doing.” For children, this process of “doing” is play, and one of the places best suited to the acquisition of experience is in school, where they can interact with children their own age, children both older and younger than themselves, and adult figures. By creating an atmosphere rich with intellectual opportunities (versus requirements) through creativity and play, and embodying it into this crucial place and time, children’s minds will flourish, learning through experience how to further explore the world around them both academically and socially.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:52 am
“V for Vendetta”
“The only verdict is vengeance. A vendetta held as a votive, not in vain for the value and voracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.”
The figure of V stands in a darkened alley, his back to the camera. Over his shoulder, one can see his head is tilted downward in profile, the dim light touching only upon the curvature of the mask he wears, suggesting the outlines of his face. It is in this extreme close up that we feel the tension and importance of the words he speaks. One might feel uncomfortable with the proximity of the shot, but the way the V speaks is alluring. He almost whispers his words, that have been so carefully selected to suit this purpose, that we are more entranced, held captive, waiting to hear what he is going to say next. This closeness melts almost into an amity, as if a great secret were being transferred from V to the audience. Also, the silence of this shot is a sharp contrast to the shot before it, where V yells upon the evils of his current country and swings his knife to carve a deep “V” into the sign beside him. This vast change in volume acts almost like a cue, drawing the audience into the development of the story line.
Slowly, the camera begins to track away, and slightly to the right of V, changing the frame from an extreme close up to a middle shot. V speaks as he turns cautiously away from the engraved sign. The illumination of the shot, singularly projected from the right (directional lighting), plays across the features of the mask as he comes to directly face Evey, and, cleverly arranged, the audience. But even as V stands perpendicular to the main action, the entire left side of his mask is overshadowed in darkness, allowing us only to glimpse half of this man’s “face.” This composition is intentional, as we cannot see the whole of his person the mystery of this man’s intentions and character also remain veiled.
Notably, the mask of V is, in itself, disconcerting. The mask is nearly colorless, white, save for the slight blushes of pink touching the cheeks and lips, and the thick black mustache, goatee, and eyebrows present on the mask. The eyes of the mask, only dark slits through which no light penetrates, are cold and hard like the stone around him. The exaggerated smile of the mask implies a certain form of strength through confidence and smugness, however it creates unease in that we know very little about this man who has suddenly presented himself upon the scene. Yet it is in these first crucial moments of the film that both Evey and the audience come to know V. Even though V has just saved Evey from the grip of three sadistically tainted men, she reaches for her pepper spray in self defense from the figure. As he speaks, mouth movement is invisible through the mask, and would give a disembodied feeling, were it not for the sheer zeal with which V speaks. This serves to set his character up. He is god-like in his divine plan, but scarred with the spice of human vice and emotion.
Within in the shot, the white sign carved with the letter “V” stands prominently against the dark mise-en-scene. While all the illumination of the shot is from the right, the sign seems to glow unnaturally in the frame. As the camera pans back and away from V, we can see that in big square letters the sign reads: “Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith.” The shot never leaves the sign, but instead seems to linger on it, as if a constant reminder of the threat it poses to the characters, and thus to the audience. Also, the blocking of the shot, or the sign’s positioning in front of Evey and behind V, is a key to the movie. V has just created his mark on the sign, and now stands victoriously in front of it, as if beyond it. It is in this moment that Evey first glimpses the truth behind their vicious government, whether she fully comes to grips with it yet or not, through V’s actions.
The strength of this shot will not be fully revealed until the audience has witnessed the rest of the movie, but stands as a focal point in the beginning, lending itself to our imaginations and expectations about the characters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:53 am
“Transformation of Tongues”
The voices, or tongues, of Jim Jarmusch’s William Blake and Jane Campion’s Ada McGrath, are transitional ones. That is, in both films, both characters are thrust into a wholly new world, and adjust, or transition, their voices in accommodation to suit the new life that lay ahead of them. For William Blake, this life is being hunted and, eventually, death. For Ada McGrath, this life is the ignition of love and, ultimately, marriage.
The shot of William Blake as he comes down the hill and encounters the two sheriffs who have found his current refuge, is one of a striking change of character. It is in this short exchange that William Blake takes his handgun from his waist and shoots both men dead on the spot, and repossesses his refuge and freedom from “the law.” It is here that he addresses the men and speaks boldly with little to no emotion- “I am William Blake. Have you heard my poetry?” He lets his gun do the speaking for him, and lets the gun set the tone for his emotion- his anger, his rage, and his dominance. His face is expressionless, the shot is taken as a long shot, to encompass his entire body, showing the rigidness of his figure. The wilderness does not stir, as if frozen in time at this monumental transformation Blake takes from a shy, wounded man lost in the wilderness to a bold, upright man holding his own against all odds.
The shot of Ada McGrath as she sits before her piano on the beach, playing melodically as George Baines watches and listens from afar, and Ada’s daughter Flora dances upon the shore, is one of tranquil expression and fearlessness. It is here, in this reunion, that we see how much Ada McGrath depends upon her piano, and how much it is a part of her. For hours, the three remain on the beach while Ada performs song after song, without tire, for it is her tongue, her communication, her expression. All the while the tide drifts in and out, the wind blows, and Ada almost seems to be connected to nature, her expression flowing just as time flows around her. But it grows dark and the three must leave the piano again. For Ada, it is like leaving her soul stranded separate from her body, and it hurts her to go. It is the beginning of her transformation that will, in the end, lead her to let her piano go.
Both shots show the characters using their “tongues” in communication. William Blake uses his gun, while Ada McGrath uses her piano. However, neither knows what lies ahead of them. Blake’s struggle throughout “Dead Man” is to stay alive, and to that end, he learns to “speak” with guns and masters his old, feminine-like self to embrace the violent nature of the struggle for survival. Ada’s course in “The Piano” follows her bondage to a man she does not know, and does not want to know, who strips her “language” from her. In so doing, this results in her acquisition of a new tongue- her love for George Baines and the separation from her old, suppressed self that has for years left her “mute.”
The story of “Dead Man” is one of extreme violence. People are killed and murdered, guns are used excessively, and there is no regard for human emotionality. William Blake, a fragile and feminine-esque figure, finds himself entering a world his gentle mind could not even have dreamed of, and he cannot, at first, begin to comprehend the workings of the “society.” His first glimpse into this violent existence is on his train ride from Cleveland, Ohio to “Machine, the end of the line.” In this initial sequence, we are introduced to the character William Blake and engage in his perception over the course of his train trip. Blake watches rather uncomfortably as the passengers sitting with him inside the train car begin to change in appearance as the train rolls westward. The number of women passengers decreases, then vanishes altogether. The men begin to look more and more rough- the appearance of scraggly beards and unkempt hair, fur coats and “coonskin” hats, and guns by their side. William Blake suddenly feels quite out of place in his nice suit and felt top hat, holding a small briefcase. During his ride, Blake also takes frequent glances out the window through the blinds. Like the people on the train, the scenery begins to morph into a gruffer landscape. First the appearance of rocky jagged mountains, then the sight of a destroyed wagon, then the desolate barren wasteland. The sequence ends with a scene where Indians off-screen attack the train, and the passengers rush to the open windows with their guns, shooting in retaliation. Blake flinches with each gunshot, and sinks down in his seat, hiding behind his briefcase.
This primary cowardice of guns will leave Blake, however, his next encounter with the crude devices is in the home of a woman he met at the saloon. Blake is lying in bed when he feels something hard under the pillow, and finds it is a handgun. “Why do you have this?” he asks aghast. “This is America,” she responds nonchalantly. It seems in Machine, even the women have grown rough and are capable of using this method of “communication.” In a way, her femininity, or emotion has almost all but left her, and been replaced with the reptilian, viciousness of masculinity. This is the case for all the characters, female or not, and will be the transition of William Blake himself.
In an unfortunate turn of events, Blake’s head is charged with the murder of the Governor’s daughter and son-in-law-to-be, as well as the theft of a prized Pinto. And thus, an animalistic hunt commences, where Blake must hold his own and “learn the language” of this violent world to stay alive. William Blake acquires a companion in an encounter with an Indian named Nobody, and late one night by the fireside as Blake turns a handgun over in his hands, Nobody tells Blake “That weapon will replace your tongue. You will become fluent.”
Nobody is not underestimating the situation. He knows well what lies in store for William Blake. As the movie progresses, Blake becomes less and less anxious about shooting people to preserve his life. The first man he shoots is a terrifying experience for him, but towards the end of the movie when he takes the storekeeper’s life, he barely shows a hint of emotion. Now, it is an automatic response for him, necessary to his existence. When Blake and Nobody are about to take a canoe down the river, he is shot in the shoulder from the back by a man in pursuit of Blake’s reward. For a moment, William Blake is motionless, recovering from the pain, then he turns around in his spot, aims his gun, and shoots the man dead. It is this point in the movie that Blake has become a masculine entity.
This fact is symbolically displayed by the short scene where William Blake is walking through the forest alone, and happens across the body of a small dead deer lying on the ground. Blake gets close to the poor animal, and draws a line from his nose to his lips with its blood like paint. He then lays down next to it, almost hugging it, and falls asleep. This scene is symbolic in that deer, especially young deer, suggest innocence. As Blake lies next to it, it shows the “death of innocence,” both in the death of the deer, and Blake’s transformation to a masculine killer.
The story of “The Piano” is one of “rebirth” and love. Ada McGrath is a 19th century mother of a daughter born out of wedlock, who has been sold by her father to a man in New Zealand, whom she is required to marry regardless of her own inclinations. For years, she has not spoken, but let her voice wither away. The only way she can “speak” is by writing with a pencil and paper she carries on a necklace, by hand-signalling in a created “language” to her daughter, or by playing on her piano. Ada McGrath’s piano is her most treasured asset, and we see in the beginning sequence of the movie, that she has had it taken with her all the way across the ocean and brought to New Zealand. For Ada, her piano is more than an object, but it is her “self” in every meaning of the word- it acts as her body, mind, and soul.
When Stewart, her husband-to-be, and his Maori helpers arrive, he tries to tell Ada that they cannot take the piano with them. She is furious, and bursts with emotion, “saying” that all other things can be left behind in lieu of the piano coming with them. But Ada is forced to leave her piano on the beach, and Stewart promises that they will come back for it later. Ada lingers behind, looking down at her piano from afar, not wanting to be separated from it for any length of time. Days pass, but it looks as though Stewart has no intention of actually returning for her piano. Ada and her daughter go to George, one of the helpers, and beg him to take them down to the piano so that Ada can play once again. The scene that follows is key to the storyline, for as Ada plays and Flora frolics, George Baines listens and watches Ada play. This is the beginning of an odd, but powerful, emotional interaction between Ada and George. Ada’s femininity, expressed through emotion, will change from the fragility of a lost woman, to the strength of a woman in love.
While in bed one night, Ada “tells” Flora one of her favorite stories, the story of her father. Through hand-signals, Ada illustrates how she and her husband were singing and dancing through the hills, and how a terrible storm stuck down her significant other, thus how Ada came to be mute and silent. “Why didn’t you marry?” questions little Flora. “He stopped listening...” Ada signs.
Ada McGrath is landed in a situation where, in order to get her piano back, she must go and give George Baines “piano lessons.” However, she finds when she goes to give him his first lesson, that he merely desires to listen and watch her play. Ada discovers that this is not George’s only prerogative; further lessons become increasingly sexual. First he kisses her neck, then asks to see her legs, then her arms, bargaining with extra keys of the piano for more outrageous “sexual” acts. In a way, Ada is forced to use her only bargaining chip- her body- to get back her piano- the essence of her body. Finally, George Baines runs out of keys to barter with, and the piano is returned to Ada. When Ada sits down at her piano, finally reunited with it in full, she begins to play, but hesitates. She turns to look behind her, but no one is there, and no one is listening. Very suddenly she realizes that over the course of the lessons, the piano has lost its emotional worth to her, and that emotional worth has been replaced by George.
In a rush, Ada McGrath makes her way to George’s house. She finds him lying on his bed, lethargic. “I can’t eat, and I can’t sleep,” he tells her, “I’ve had enough. Go!” George repeats, telling her to leave, but she won’t. He opens the door and yells at her to get out of his house, and Ada responds by slapping him across the face, and thrashing out at him. She sinks to the floor and begins to weep, but suddenly gets up and kisses him. They melt from violence into pure intimacy, and it is in this passionate scene that Stewart spies them. Stewart locks Ada away in his home out of jealousy, so she cannot see George Baines again, and Ada expresses her deep sorrow by song on her piano.
Towards the end of the movie, Ada takes a key from her piano, and carves into it the words: “Dear George, you have my heart in death.” This is her final transformation from her reliance of her piano, to the strength of her own “speech,” as the piano now means so little to her that she can remove one of its keys and give it to George as a message of her love. Ada and George are allowed at last, to leave New Zealand together, as Stewart has given up his desire of Ada. They are leaving by canoe when Ada requests that they throw her piano overboard. Her request, after all that she went through to get it back, seems ludicrous, but she is determined to throw out her past. Her foot, caught in the rope, takes her down under the ocean with her piano, but she breaks free, and emerges from the surface of the water, “reborn” into her new life. George purchases her a new piano, and Ada begins to relearn how to speak and talk. Ada has severed her ties to her old emotionality, her old self, and now can start anew, married to George, and no longer silent.
The change of the characters, William Blake in “Dead Man” and Ada McGrath in “The Piano,” are linked to the way in which they communicate. For William Blake, a loss of innocence allows him to learn the “poetry” of the gun. For Ada McGrath, a newfound love allows her to part from her expressionary dependance of her piano. Both characters are changed in a way that they cannot go back from, and this change leads them each to their end, roles which are archetypically understood for their gender. For Blake, this ends in death, and for Ada, marriage. The change that effects both of the characters is also comparable to the masculine and feminine qualities. Each experiences a “separation of themselves-” for Blake, a more physical separation, shown through the aggressiveness of his attitude towards the end of the film. For Ada, it is an emotional separation, her feelings driving her to reject her piano and embrace a new life.
Both characters have the drive for expression, but their way of expression must change to suit the lives they are thrust into. The journey of both characters are a deep expression of just that. Expression.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Khalida Nyoka Vice Captain
|
Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2006 10:31 pm
I'm glad I didn't have to write them, honey~!
You did a good job though! ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:55 pm
I enjoyed all of them, especially the one based on V, immensely.
I must say, you're pretty darn smart.
I bet you aced your SATs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:20 pm
paroxysmal_pianist I enjoyed all of them, especially the one based on V, immensely.
I must say, you're pretty darn smart.
I bet you aced your SATs. Why thank you! And yes, I did ace them. xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:23 pm
“My Children”
I myself had a pleasant and fulfilling childhood. I enjoyed myself and grew up alert and responsive; I made friends and questioned the world around me; I held certain values very high in my youth, and do to this day. Looking back I could not have wished for much more than I had been given. It only stands to reason then, that I should desire a similar, though obviously not “carbon copy”, childhood for my own children. To this end, I shall divulge upon the view I have of their future childhood, with an emphasis on the three most fundamental components of the growth they will undergo over their relatively short time of youth. These three factors are the importance and influence of Family, Education, and Social Interactions.
The forerunner of a child’s development is the family, and the child’s position within the family. It is here that children spend their infancy- being held by their mother and father, watching the world with eager open eyes, experimenting with their hands and bodies, and learning to crawl and walk. Most significantly, this infantile stage is also when children learn to speak and communicate both emotionally and orally. They are taken care of by the parental figures, and this allows them to grow and learn. “Much of parenthood is giving- time, attention, patience, food, guidance, love.” (Lewis, Amini, Lannon, 359) “Parents ... meet young ... needs because of the regularity of their presence and the natural depth of their devotion.” (Lewis, Amini, Lannon, 35 cool To be sure, this is something quite desirable to me when it comes to my children. I want to actively interact with and care for my children, and I have chosen a husband who I feel will do the same. I intend to be a stay-at-home mother to better suit these ends.
“Responsive parenting confers apparently permanent personality strengths.” (Lewis, Amini, Lannon, 357) This touches upon the next step of a child’s life within the family, and that is the acquisition of certain values and characteristics, the elements that shape the overall person of an individual.
“The first and fundamental structure for ‘human ecology’ is the family, in which man receives his first formative ideas about truth and goodness, and learns what it means to love and be loved, and thus what it actually means to be a person. Here we mean the family founded on marriage, in which the mutual gift of self by husband and wife creates an environment in which children can be born and develop their potentialities, become aware of their dignity and prepare to face their unique and individual destiny.” (John Paul II, 446)
There are many characteristics I would like my children to learn over the course of their development, the major of these being honesty, integrity, industry, and a sense of humor. The morals and values we wish our children to have we, as the examples for our children, should be very careful to do ourselves. If one wants to teach his child frugality, it would be foolish to go to stores often and buy many unnecessary things. Instead, a child should be able to view those morals being demonstrated around him, so that he may absorb them and replicate them for himself. But not only must a child see these morals and values in action, he should be able to see the obvious and positive benefits coming from those values. Again, if a child is to be taught frugality, he should see his parents trying their hardest to save (such as repairing a rip in a pair of jeans, rather than buying a new pair), and that after a few weeks or months of saving, the parents are able to afford something special as a result of those efforts (such as buying oneself a nice Saudi jacket as a reward).
As a child matures into pre-adulthood (and beyond), the family should be a place that child could easily come back to, an environment that is supportive and concerned, in a constant way. Every parent loves their child, and every child loves their parent, but that alone is not enough to shape a truly cohesive family. Parents and children alike should be willing to be open, sensitive, and at the same time, decisive. I should very much like to have a relationship to my children in a similar way that I had with my own parents. Where the child feels at ease speaking with his parents amiably, listening to their suggestions and/or concerns, and formulating his own opinions that he feels comfortable and willing to express for he has a pure interest in the persuasion of his parents. And where the parents should meet the opinions of their child with respect and thoughtfulness, and provide their own input casually as a means of guidance that the child can take or not take. By these ways, the aforementioned values, Honesty and Integrity will hopefully flourish. That is something I would like to achieve with my children.
The second important aspect of a child’s development is the education he receives over the years of his growth, from the elementary level to the college level. I say “college level” because I want to see my children go to college, taking that step beyond the “necessary.” I feel a strong mind is the basis for a strong soul and a strong body. “Just the same way I want to send my kid to college.” (Terkel 39 cool The steel worker, Terkel, knows well the importance of a good education, both in terms of the jobs one is able to acquire with such a “degree” of knowledge and in terms of the character one develops from it and emits day-to-day. I will try not to pressure my children too hard, as I would like them to achieve as much or as little as they please, but be able to set their horizons high. It is important to me that they be secured the ability to succeed as much as they desire to with as little hindrance as possible.
However, apart from the knowledge and necessary academic foundations that education provides, the business of morals and values comes into play once again. A good education should not singularly incorporate information and analytical skills, but strengthen the values taught and practiced inside the family. When a child does well at something, be it as simple as counting up to ten or as complicated as scoring an A on a highschool exam, he should be praised, or shown that his work and dedication are appreciated and respected. A child that feels his abilities are of value will want to express them further. “Everyone knows ... that the subject matter itself isn’t that hard. What’s hard, virtually impossible, is beating it into the heads of youngsters who hate every step. ... Give me a kid who wants to learn the stuff, and twenty hours or so makes sense.” (Greenberg 194) Greenberg remarks upon the willingness and amazing ability of children who are eager to learn and show their capabilities. If children are commended, they are given a glimpse into their own self-worth. “To have that sense of one’s intrinsic worth, which constitutes self-respect, is potentially to have everything.” (Didion 116) “People with self-respect exhibit a certain toughness, a kind of moral nerve; they display what is ... called character.” (Didion 114) “Character- the willingness to accept responsibility for one’s own life- is the source from which all self-respect springs.” (Didion 115) Children who grow up around actively respectful and concerned beings, whether parents, teachers, or other older figures, will establish within themselves a sense of Integrity, and a readiness to explore the boundaries of all there is to know, academic or not, thus promoting the value of Industry. A desire to be useful, to learn new things.
Lastly, the third factor in a child’s development is Social Interaction. Social interaction are the things that go above and beyond the “necessary,” or are simply used as a tool for exploring deeper into subjects and objectives one is interested in further. One of the best examples of this is the BSA, or Boy Scouts of America, and the GSA, or Girl Scouts of America. These opportunities, set around the idea of boys and girls coming together in comradery, give children (aged from as young as five to as old as eighteen) a way to learn new things, participate in activities and events, and interact cooperatively and constructively with their peers, under the guidance of a “scout leader,” who, in the case of the girls, acts as motherly figure, and, in the case of the boys, acts as a fatherly figure. I started Girl Scouts when I was twelve years old, and continued until I was eighteen. It presented me with opportunities almost too numerous to count, including intense cookie sales and the achievement of the “Gold Award,” the highest rank available to female scouts. My younger brother is also a scout, and has been since he was five. Seeing fully the benefits of my own (and brother’s) experience, I fully intend to send my own children to Scouts.
Other examples of forms of social interaction are Little League, Sunday School, Dance Classes, and School Groups. All of these provide interaction that is necessary to growth, and that will help to reinforce the values and ethics set forth in the family and also in school. “Exuberant play appears to be particularly important in nourishing social affinities in very young animals that later become members of a cohesive social unit.” (Jamision 22) By getting the chance to interact with others their age, children will learn cooperation and good values that will aid them later in life, and help them to make good decisions. Besides this, these groups promote opportunity, a chance to excel in a given sport or activity, or learn information or skills that otherwise may not have presented itself. Thus, it’s importance alongside the family and education.
In conclusion, I find that these three factors- Family, Education, and Social Interaction- are the essence of a child’s development, and from these three spring forth the values that I desire to see replicated in my progeny. I have set down the sorts of experiences I wish my children to have, and that from those experiences what I can expect from their futures. With all due effort, I expect that I will see my children’s development in this way, and in the end, be proud of all that they are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:06 pm
“In the Name of the Law”
“If man in the state of nature be so free as has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he give up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and control of any other power? To which ‘tis obvious to answer that, though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others. For all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure. This makes him willing to quit this condition which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers. And ‘tis not without reason that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates.” (Locke, 589)
A government’s purpose is to serve the people. People are united under a single society because that society provides for them. Society, as defined by the Webster dictionary, is “the community of people living in a particular country or region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations.” The key word in this statement is the connotation “shared.” There are numerous varieties and forms of government and societies, but in all of them, there is a certain embodiment of the people subject to that rule. The similarity in their beliefs or customs is what makes them an integral part of a whole, and what creates the laws that will in turn ensure the continuation of those values and/or beliefs. When any people unite under a single government, they do so because that government in turn protects, through laws and regulations, “individual sanctity,” where society acts as a sanctuary for the individual aims of the people within it.
However, there are times when the government- any government- oversteps its bounds. It is then that action must be taken, either directly against the government or through passive resistance, in order to rectify the laws which are not suitable for devotion. “...There are two types of laws; there are just and unjust laws. ... An unjust law is no law at all.” (King, 696) To the question of which laws are or are not just, Martin Luther King Jr. states, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. ... An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” (696)
One can see quite easily then how the segregation laws under which Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellow African Americans struggled were considered unjust, and therefore, “no law at all.” Similarly, any treatment of human beings in a degrading manner would be unjust, and therefore, adhering to that particular law would be inapplicable. Other examples could include laws that forced each citizen to convert to a particular religious sect, restricted certain business ventures or services, or banned free speech in any form. A law should be enlisted for the good of the people living under it, not to suppress or harm them, and furthermore, if there is dissent among the people living under their government, those people have the power to refashion that reality, or impose their own new government by which to live by.
Perhaps the greatest example of this is the foundation of United States of America.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving from their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (Declaration of Independence, 594)
The people of the thirteen colonies of the United States were ruled under the iron fist of England and they were wronged constantly and their plights were ignored by the King of England. They listed, within the Declaration of Independence, all the wrongs that were brought upon them by and in the name of their government, and used these wrongs- these unjust laws- to justify their severance from the government under which they were formerly ruled. They then formed the “Constitution of the United States of America,” in which the laws and guidelines of those thirteen colonies embodied were written for all its citizens to follow and obey in their new nation. In later years, people from all across the world would immigrate to the United States, to join in that embodiment because their beliefs coincided. They would do just as John Locke advocated- they would seek out and join in a society with others who were already united for the mutual preservation of those things they themselves held so dear.
Looking at the notion of a nation in which all citizens are united under the preservation of their “individual sanctity,” Benjamin Barber states that “Citizenship is an artificial role that the natural man prudently adopts in order to safeguard his solitary humanity.” (Barber 637) He argues that the institution of the United States “is negative rather than affirmative and can conceive of no form of citizenship other than the self-interested bargain.” (Barber 649) However, what he neglects is that citizenship is driven by self-interested desires and little more, it is the unification of multiple individuals; and that any group of individuals, whether or not their beliefs coincide, can never be classified as a single unit. A government’s purpose should not be to satisfy a multitude of people as a solitary voice in a society, nor should its purpose be to satisfy singularly individual wants of each person in that society, instead it should aim to “defend and protect with the whole common force their person and good associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.” (Barber, 63 cool A government should seek to create a community where “individual sanctity” is celebrated as a whole. When government fails this, it is the responsibility of the people to change it.
Furthermore, if all citizens of a nation were content and devout followers of their country, as Barber poses should be the model for any “strong democratic nation,” there would be no drive to change, or to improve the state of said nation. It is the people who find wrong within a nation, and set themselves to fix it, that drive the future of human nature forward. If Martin Luther King Jr. and his fellow African Americans had been “good citizens” of America, and never questioned the authority of the government to make decisions that effected them, we would still have slavery today- and moreover, everyone would accept it, for it would “not be their place to do otherwise,” being citizens with strong ties to their citizenship. “Liberal democracy is based on premises about human nature, knowledge, and politics that are genuinely liberal but that are not intrinsically democratic. Its conception of the individual and of individual interest undermines the democratic practices upon which both individuals and their interests depend.” (Barber, 634) What Barber says is weak democracy is actually a strong democracy, for citizens should not act for the good of their nation, but for the good of themselves through the nation. By having a so-called “weak liberal democracy,” we have in fact a very sturdy democracy that allows for change for the good of all on an individual level.
Looking at a more modern context of the role of government and its people, we turn to a man named Stephen Nathanson, who has aptly proposed four distinguishable models for individuals within a society. The names he gives each are “the super patriot,” “the political cynic,” “the anarchist,” and “the critical citizen.” When the question, “are governments legitimate authority?”, is proposed, “one can answer ‘Yes, they always do,’ which is the answer of super patriotism, or ‘No, they never do,’ which is the answer of anarchists and some cynics. Or one can say ‘Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t,’ which is the answer of some cynics and of critical citizen advocates.” (Nathanson, 717) It is the role of the critical citizen that drives change forward. “According to the critical citizenship position, laws and governments deserve our support and obedience only if they meet certain standards of justice and morality.” (Nathanson, 715)
Critical citizens will constantly test the laws of the government against the beliefs of their individual person. And, if and when, those critical citizens find a flaw, or a need for change, they will be the ones to come together and work for that change, breaking the law that is unjust if necessary. In a way, it is their duty to do so. There are always the people of a society who obey, and those who do not obey, but it is the people who choose whether or not to obey given on the circumstances of the situation who have the power to alter the reality of their government, and thus also alter the reality of those people who do obey and those people who do not. It is the critical citizens of the world, who cling to their right to “individual sanctity,” who discern the just laws from the unjust laws, who stand up against their governments and fight for their beliefs, they are the ones that change the world for the better and drive us into the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:48 pm
"The Disengagement of Comedy"
Comedy defeats Death (or for the purpose of this essay, Drama) in its presentation. The lure of most Comedies is the amusement we can get, as an audience, out of a dramatic plot structure, that often follows one or more characters on a personal journey of some kind. Likewise, the lure of a Drama is in the depth of plot and its emotional tension; however, almost any Drama is bound to have comedic moments, in the form of “comic relief,” be it situational, or through a character in reoccurring scenarios. In a sense, both Comedies and Dramas, allow us to “laugh and cry” along with the characters. However, we are left with a very different impression when we watch a Drama over a Comedy, and vice versa. Comedy means to sweep us away from the everyday, make us laugh, amuse us and astound us. Drama means to place us inside another body or society, and make us frightened, wary, or empowered. Both have very emotional responses, but in a profoundly different way. Nevertheless, Comedy shows the striking ability to defeat Drama again and again, be it triumph over physical violence, extreme emotion, or even death. It allows us to disengage.
To illustrate this fact further, two Comedies have been selected. The first, a novel by Suzann-Lori Parks, “Getting Mother’s Body,” is a highly dramatic comedy, set in 1963 Texas. It follows the journey of Billy Beede, a 16-year old African American girl, who has her mind set on getting an abortion, and won’t let anyone convince her otherwise. The second, a film by Billy Wilder, “Some Like it Hot,” is predominantly comedic, set in 1929 Chicago/Florida, that follows two musicians who witness the murder of some mobsters by other mobsters. To stay alive and get out of Chicago, they pose as women and join an all-girls band headed to Florida.
Both stories follow a theme that is frequently used in Comedy, and this is “the chase.” The chase is the body of the story, driving it forward by the motivation of its characters. Each character has one desire, perhaps multiple desires, and it is the manner in which each pursues his individual goals that instills physical energy into the story. These physical energies create a tension, a mish-mash, a hodge-podge; everyone is going every which way, trying to get whatever they want, despite what everyone else wants. And this is comedic. It is the very energy, or motion, having to do with “the chase” that makes it inherent to Comedy– that makes us laugh when villains are foiled, or cheer when good guys narrowly escape death, or giggle when two people argue about who’s wrong and why.
The actual “chase” can be any number of things. It can be one man after another man, it can be a man after an object, a man after an intimate counterpart, or a man after a return to normalcy. Usually, it is a mixture of many of these driving each individual character that makes the chase so intense and gratifying. Commonly, “the chase” comes in the form of the quest for love and money. We find this particular quest in both “Some Like it Hot” and “Getting Mother’s Body.”
In “Some Like it Hot,” our musician heroes, Joe and Jerry, are up to their ears in debt and, after the recent discovery of the speak-easy hidden away inside a funeral parlor, stuck without a solid job. Thus, their quest revolves around money. Joe gets them both in even more dire straights, when he bets their overcoats on a dog race. Desperate for a job, and freezing in the below zero Chicago temperatures, the two are willing to take any sort of gig. However, their quest quickly finds them confronted by mobsters, and witness to a second gang of mobsters gunning the first down. Suddenly Joe and Jerry find their quest has expanded, not only the need for money, but the more immediate protection of their skins! Their flight carries them into a most clever disguise, that of women, in an all-girls band on its way to a 3-week stand in sunny Florida. During this train ride, Joe and Jerry- or more appropriately, Josephine and Daphne- meet a girl named Sugar, whose own personal quest revolves in “running away” from male bands, and the inevitable “old pair of socks and tube of toothpaste, all squeezed out”. As these three grow to know one another better, Joe and Jerry’s quests evolve to not simply the acquisition of wealth, but of love- the only problem is, for the time, they are stuck in women’s bodies! Sugar meanwhile finds herself on the quest for both wealth and love all wrapped up in one neat bundle– her hopes of finding a “rich bird flown south for the winter”– a millionaire. Urged on by his quest for the love of Sugar, Joe cleverly manages to pull off two disguises at once- that of the saxophone player Josephine and that of a rich oil-company millionaire. Meanwhile, Jerry allows himself to be wooed by a millionaire, and even engaged, in hopes of getting a large alimony. In the end, Joe and Jerry remove their disguises, and this shift poses little more than a ripple to both Sugar and Osgood!
These fast-paced wants, switching and escalating desires, chases, give the film energy, and comic mischief and amusement abound almost every minute. Joe and Jerry are inexorably tied together to try and get themselves out of debt and stay alive, but Josephine and Daphne are steadfastly pitted against one another trying to win the love of Sugar. The result is two love-struck compatriots, fleeing from the wrath of vicious mobsters while being tossed about in the complex sea of femininity. “I’m a girl, I’m a girl. I wish I were dead!”
In “Getting Mother’s Body” Billy Beede, our heroine, starts out as an ignorant girl, in love with a man far older than her by the name of Snipes. Snipes has gotten her pregnant, and so her quest begins with a wedding ring- or Snipes’ hand in marriage. When she asks Snipes about their situation, he seems willing to marry her, but she finds out a little later that Snipes is already married, and the father of many children. Thus immediately, her quest turns to killing the baby that he has put inside her- which requires $100 that she doesn’t have. She sells off her pearl earring necklace, and realizes that “there’s more where that came from.” Her mother, Willa Mae, is rumored to have been buried with a whole necklace of pearls, as well as a diamond ring, and that gets Billy thinking... Her mother’s grave is about to be paved over to become a super market, and her body needs to be moved anyway, so why not go and relieve her of that cumbersome jewelry? Billy convinces June and Roosevelt to accompany her, through the clever use of “Holes” she has learned innately from her mother. Amusingly enough, the “Holes” of the characters in the novel are representative of their quests of love and money- “a hole in the heart, and a hole in the pocket.” Dill Smiles, the old bull dagger, isn’t about to let Billy dig up her mother though, and joining with Laz in his hearse, they rush to head them off at the grave site in LaJunta, Arizona. A dramatic standstill ends in Dill choosing which one of her conflicting quests she will take- that of her violent nature (and killing Billy Beede) or that of her heart (in unburying Willa Mae, the woman she loves).
The novel follows Billy Beede, but the story is told from many perspectives, the most important of which are Laz Jackson, Dill Smiles, June and Roosevelt Beede, Homer Rochfoucault, and Willa Mae. Along with these characters, naturally, come quests that they individually adamantly chase, regardless of the vying motives of the others. Laz Jackson’s sole quest for years has been to acquire the love of Billy Beede. Dill Smiles has little more on her mind than living life in peace and quiet, until Billy steals her truck to dig up her own mother’s grave. Dill’s quest takes a sudden turn, set on killing Billy Beede, but in her heart, she still quests after the love of her dead lover Willa Mae. June’s quest is to acquire a little money, and buy herself a new leg, and Roosevelt’s quest is to re-find his faith that he has lost. Homer Rochfoucault’s quest entails finding enough money to support his mother and continue his college education. Willa Mae’s quest, though she is dead, is to continue living in the hearts of those who are living.
The way in which the characters in “Getting Mother’s Body” act and respond to one another according to their individual quests often poses tension, but is often comedic in nature. Like any good Drama, tension is removed with tension, using Comedic overtones that relieve the stress of the otherwise tight situation. Comedy, no matter what, always has the power to defeat or overtake Drama. Examples of this disengagement abound in both the film and the novel.
Towards the beginning of “Some Like it Hot,” the police have determined the whereabouts of the speak-easy disguised inside Mozzarella's funeral parlor. Mobsters have been sneaking illegal alcohol inside coffins in hearses, and serving it through “cups of coffee.” The scene is a little tense, while everyone goes about their happy-go-lucky business, the police will be breaking down the door any second! The head gangster of the joint, Spatz, makes his way in with his bodyguards, and as he does, a man knocks into him and spills “coffee” on his nice white spatz. Spatz shoves the man away, and as the man is shoved away by the body guards, he drunkenly replies “I want another cup of coffee!” The cops burst in on the place, and begin to arrest everyone they can, but the drunk man continues to rant over and over, holding his cup skyward, “I want another cup of coffee!” His actions are utterly ridiculous, and in the light of the rather stressful situation, very amusing. He’s about to be arrested, as is everyone else, but all he can think about is his next “cup of coffee.”
In this scene, we have the motives of the coppers– break up the party and get their jobs done– the motives of the mobsters– keep their illegal business running and keep a clean record– and the amusing single-minded motive of the drunken man– to acquire another cup of coffee. Comedy easily triumphs over Drama, and allows us to laugh at the drunken man even when the scene is serious business and holds dire consequences for our two protagonists- in other words, we disengage.
Near the end of the film, Spatz and his goons sit down to meet with the rest of the mobster gangs inside the hotel. The head mobster announces that he is going to be retiring, and that he needs someone to take his position. In the back room, a mobster is getting into the center of a giant cake, while another mobster hands him an automatic weapon and puts the top on. Spatz meanwhile, is sensing that a promotion is about to be given to him, though he looks to be thinking it seems a little suspicious. At this point, the huge cake is pushed out into the room, with the words “Happy Birthday Spatz!” on it. Spatz says his birthday isn’t for another four months, but all the mobsters begin to sing as the lights are dimmed. “For he’s a jolly good fellow, which nobody can deny!” Suddenly, a mobster pops out of the cake and guns Spatz and his cronies down. The scene is utterly gruesome, and yet, it is so easy to laugh at. What makes it so is the amusing way in which Spatz finally meets his end- at the hands of a giant birthday cake. While we have little sympathy for the antagonist, the scene still obviously proves that Comedy has the power to defeat even Death.
In “Getting Mother’s Body,” we find Billy at home getting washed up before she goes to purchase her wedding dress at Mrs. Jackson’s store. June Beede begins to talk to Billy, bring up her mother Willa Mae. Billy doesn’t much care for the subject, as she denies her likeness to her mother, even though, as the story progresses, she has more and more in common with her. “The apple don’t fall far from the tree,” June remarks. And Billy quickly snaps back “I ain’t no goddamned apple.” Of course Billy is right, she isn’t an apple, however, June had been speaking metaphorically, but to Billy it is all the same, and she refuses to admit to any resemblance to her mother. The scene is rather tense, but Billy’s remark is a Comedic and, for an instant, alleviates the pressure the reader may be feeling.
After Billy has purchased her dress, Roosevelt and Dill have a conversation about her out of earshot. Roosevelt argues very stiffly that Billy is not like her mother, but Dill disagrees saying she has “her mother’s heart and ways.” “What you got against yr own sister?” Dill asks. “What you got against Billy taking after her own mother?” “Willa Mae ended up in the ground,” says Roosevelt, to which Dill smartly replies, “We all end up in the ground.” Not only is this wisdom, but it is amusing in its delivery. The two are discussing a serious issue regarding Billy, but this lightens the tone. Again, we find that Drama is repressed with a clever use of Comedic language.
While the Comedic moments in “Some Like it Hot” tend to be more physical, as well as staged, and the Comedic moments in “Getting Mother’s Body” seem more coy and witty, both the film and novel show how, through the use of Comedy, Drama can be superseded. Placing Comedy in the foreground and placing Drama in the background, creates a different sort of story entirely, and while we, as the audience, can actively engage in it, we can also disengage from it. Without the use of Comedy, we would be unable to step back from the novel or film and appreciate it for its clever, but manipulative, aspects that give us amusement– be it in the form of a giggle, chuckle, guffaw, snicker, or big belly laugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 11:51 am
This is an essay I had to do on 'Capital Punishment' (or The death Penalty
In our Religious Education lessons at school we have been discussing the important issue of Capital Punishment or The Death Penalty. Capital Punishment is execution and is a very serious issue that must be addressed in all governments of the world.
Many countries do not legally impose the death penalty for religious reasons or the fact that their government have decided against it. (our own country only abolished it around 41 years ago) This essay will discuss the reasons these governments have used to argue for or against Capital Punishment and my peers’ views and opinions.
There are many ways to think of Capital Punishment, my peer Charlotte Cropper thinks that we should not have it because of the risk that you kill the wrong person, however if they are certain they have the right person then they should be put to death. She also said,” The prisoners nowadays should earn their keep and work, so that we do not have to waste so much money, and the prisoners can learn an important lesson.” I agree with this and think it a very important view; I think Charlotte had a very good point about getting the wrong person as you cannot say,” Oops, sorry, we killed the wrong person,” To somebody dead (I don’t think that they would be very forgiving). But if you did find the right person guilty and did not have enough evidence to convict them and execute them, then they would still have to work and have a less easy life than the prisoners at the moment.
However, if the court found a serial murderer not guilty, then they would be able to lead a half normal life, even though they had caused many peoples pain and death. But at least they would have to work and not just sit watching television all day.
Also, Charlotte said that we do not have to waste so much money if the prisoners work, I agree as some of the prisoners could cook and clean for one another and this would give them luxuries like a television, and I would save paying lots of staff and make the prisoners learn discipline. However, having the death penalty would be even less expensive.
To many religious people, murder is against their beliefs, and going against your god or religion is much worse than the death penalty. Iran and Saudi Arabia are Muslim countries and they believe that murder is against Allah and you would spend eternity in hell if you disobey this rule. This must be a very specific, petrifying rule as eternity in a worse place than anything must not be very nice. Buddhists also have very strong views about murder; they cannot kill anything, not insects, not animals, not anything, and this is why there is no fully Buddhist countries – the Buddhists cannot fight and kill to protect their country.
Some people think that many criminals that have served their time now come out of jail and re-offend, but this is not true in many cases because the police look out for them to see how their lives are outside of prison, and many criminals change. I read an article on the internet that was about a man who was drunk in a pub, and tried to murder his friend, but someone from the bar stopped him. The man spent some time in jail and, when he came out, he became a Christian and looked to god for forgiveness. This was fortunate; however, those that do re-offend could have been stopped by the death penalty before they murdered the second, or third, person.
Although, by killing the criminal, is that like us being murderers? We are killing a human. But it is definitely different to killing someone innocent, that has not committed any crime, and is killed out of pure enjoyment or greed from the other person.
Most mothers, or fathers, or siblings, or friends, who have been affected by a murder, want revenge, and for some jail is not enough. Most of these people would want the murderer to have ‘a taste of his own medicine’ and have his life taken as well as the innocent victim, but the country does not allow it.
Some people think that Capital Punishment should not be allowed but think that life imprisonment is not enough. I agree totally with this view as ‘life imprisonment’ is only around 25-30 years and if they offended when they were young (e.g. 19-25) then the criminal would only be 44 when they got out, leaving them enough time to have a proper life, maybe settle down, get married and have children. Life imprisonment is definitely not enough; and I think that this view is the only one in this essay that I completely agree with.
Another risk of having Capital Punishment is that the person convicted of the murder may have actually killed the victim, and may even admit doing it, but does not agree that the killing was murder. Often the only people who know what really happened are the accused and the deceased. It then comes down to how good the prosecution and defence lawyers are which decides if the killer is convicted for murder or for manslaughter. And it is highly probable that people are convicted of murder when they should really have only been convicted of manslaughter.
However, if the killer did murder the victim, but hired a very good defence lawyer, then they could lie to the court about murdering, and then get away with it.
In conclusion, there are many different views on Capital Punishment; Religious reasons are a very big part of the world’s views
and opinions, so are the views of people who have experienced a murder or murderer within their family. Now I have researched, interviewed and talked to many people to find out all the different opinions of the world on this very serious issue, and I am now very confused about my views on Capital Punishment, unlike I was before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:08 pm
Ooh interesting. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:52 pm
“The Philosophy of Religion and Our Earth”
The Earth has been around for billions of years, spinning peacefully on its axis while making revolutions around the Sun. In terms of the great Earth, we humans have only been around a very short amount of time, infinitesimal, and yet, we have very decidedly claimed it as our home, and shown our mastery of working within and inside of nature itself. Building ourselves up to our current position has taken us thousands of years, spent learning, experimenting, and inventing. Everything we’ve learned and everything we’ve taken advantage of, has come from the ability to observe what is around us and use that to our advantage. It is our ability to use nature in a constructive way to support us that has helped us grow as a race. From the birth of fire to the development of the wheel to the invention of bridges and aqueducts to the start of the industrial revolution to progression of modern medicine techniques, we humans have elevated ourselves within nature. Some might go so far as to say that we have “conquered” nature. Whatever the viewpoint, we have become what we are because of our intellect and determination, with the use of “Science.”
However, the other thing that nature has secured us is equally important. While our great understanding of nature and all things in it is expansive, there has always been one thing that has never left us as a race. The questions of “how?” and “why?” We have never really been able to explain why we are here as we are on Earth, or how we really came to be, or how Earth itself (or the entire Universe) came to be. We know that there is our human nature, and that there is a nature that governs the Earth, and that those two natures coexist, but this does not explain the question of how and why. It is only the effect, the answer to some question, with the cause left unknown. And from here, derives the second thing nature has given us– Religion.
Religion has been in existence nearly as long as humans have been on this Earth. And, like the people of the Earth, Religion has come in many different forms, but there are a couple of aspects that have never varied. The first is that no society, no matter how large or small, be it a kingdom or a village, has been without a Religion of some kind. Some of the Religions of the Earth may involve a very strict adherence, perhaps even human sacrifice, others may be very loose, or domestic in makeup, but regardless of the “cultural” differences, there has never been a society without some form of Religion to explain the unknowable. The second is that all Religions, in the most general sense, believe in one, or more, Deity of a nature far greater than that of human nature, and that that Being created the Earth for human use. This is seen in all major Religions such as Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity, as well as in “lesser” Religions such as those practiced by Pacific Islanders and Native Americans. It should also be mentioned that every society has a varying take on Religion and how it will affect the inner workings of their Government. This can cause extremes, such as a Theocracy, in which all government revolves around the Religion on which it is based, or Communism, where there is a completely separation between the two. However, the connection between Government structure and Religious practice usually ends in a mix of these two extremes. Religion, without a doubt, has had a strong impact on the way we humans have grown in our own nature, and where we are today.
Science derives from Knowledge, it involves all that we can touch and feel and make sense of, that we can use with our minds and bodies to work in a way that we see fit. Religion derives from Faith, and involves all the things that are intangible to us, that we may not understand or comprehend, but acknowledge as truth under that Faith. Karl Marx, a strong Communist activist, would argue that Religion is false, but more importantly, that it is a hindrance to society and the growth of moving forward. He writes, “The more man puts into God, the less he retains in himself.” (Marx 38 cool “It belongs to another; it is the loss of his self.” (Marx 390) What he means is that putting Faith into a Religion, or a certain Deity, does not move society forward technologically or otherwise, and thus, he concludes that it has no place within society. This is consistent with his Communist leanings. While Marx has a reasonable point, however, it is wise to remember that while Religion does not directly promote progress, it allows progress to occur; that is, without it, progress would not be able to occur. Without Religion, there is no answer to the “how?” or “why?” and there is no explanation for the supernatural aspects of Earth and Man. Many people need and require an answer to “the meaning of life,” or somewhere to place their Faith in those things they cannot control, to move forward themselves, not just spiritually, but day to day, mentally and physically. Without Religion, Man is completely stripped barren of any “control” he might have had with Faith, and the action of living without Devotion, or Belief, in a higher power or otherworldly existence is nigh impossible.
This however, does not explain Atheism, or the number of Atheists we have in today’s society. However, it should be pointed out that these people who do not believe in a set Religion do have a strong Belief in something else, a Governing Factor over Earthly nature or human nature. This Governing Factor could be the Theory of Evolution, or, in Marx’s case, a deep Devotion to a certain form of Government, such as Communism or Capitalism. This, of course, is not to say that the Theory of Evolution or any given Government practice are false either, simply that they are what Atheists have Faith in. In a way, it is their own personal Religion. Nihilism works in a similar fashion. The definition of Nihilism in the Webster Dictionary is “The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.” While Nihilists do not follow Religious beliefs or beliefs that Atheists might, they still follow one single Belief– that life is meaningless. In this way, we can see that Religion, though perhaps not in the context we all commonly think of, guides and shapes the human experience and is an integral part of our human nature.
The truth of the matter is that Science and Religion are very dissimilar parts of one whole. Within our human nature, there is no way to “escape” from either. In terms of the nature of the Earth, former Pope John Paul II quotes the Bible, “God, who created both the Earth and Man, ... gave the Earth to Man so that he might have dominion over it by his work and enjoy its fruits (Gen 1:2 cool .” He interprets further, “It is through work that Man, using his intelligence and exercising his freedom, succeeds in dominating the Earth and making it a fitting home.” (Paul II, 439) Here, we have two factors at work. The first is, of course, Religion. The belief that we have been given Earth so we may partake of it. The action of partaking of the Earth is the factor of Science, our knowledge and ability to build ourselves up, and fashion the world as we see fit. “His intelligence enables him to discover the Earth’s productive potential and the many different ways in which human needs can be satisfied.” (Paul II, 440)
Perhaps one of the greatest beliefs that is held in Christianity is the belief that we were bestowed with Freedom. The Freedom to think, act, and decide independently of Earthly nature, to have our own human nature. No other creature on Earth has the complete Freedom and lack of restriction that humans have; we are “independent” of Earthly nature, whereas other creatures remain bound by its laws. However, to say that we are “independent” is also somewhat a fallacy. For while we are able to carry out our Freedom, or perhaps better stated, our Science, we cannot do so without the existence of Earth, and all the resources it makes available to our use, and the environment it provides for the growth and development of our human nature. Wendell Berry also draws a distinct line across these two, Earthly nature being what he calls the Great Economy and human nature being what he calls the little economy. “If there is no denying our dependence on the Great Economy, there is also no denying our need for a little economy– a narrow circle within which things are manageable by the use of our wits.” (Berry 940) He goes on to mention our current economical standpoint, “For the industrial economy does not see itself as a little economy; it sees itself as the only economy.” (Berry 945) His argument is a sound one, for as we have grown ever more in our abilities inside that “narrow circle” of our human nature, we have gradually forgotten about our dependence on the Great Economy. In these terms, it is easy to see that we, as humans with the Freedom bestowed upon us, have caused much Destruction as a result of our Creation(s). It is easy to see what is good for us inside the little economy, or human nature, but it is much more difficult to place ourselves as a product of the Great Economy, or Earthly nature, and take steps to secure ourselves through it instead. Simpler put in the words of the former Pope, “Instead of carrying out his role as a cooperator with God in the work of Creation, Man sets himself up in the place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of nature.” (Paul II 445)
This raises quite the question. If we were to say that placing ourselves in the role or function of God was wrong, it would be counterintuitive against the Christian belief that we were created in God’s image, and given Freedom to choose, not only whether we would follow the Christian faith, but what we would do in this life. Not only that, but our human nature is governed by emotions, such as guilt, honor, and humility, that other creatures do not possess, that enables us to make decisions or complete actions in a Godly fashion. Perhaps then it is not so much a question of if we can or cannot take on a Godly role, but how much is a suitable undertaking for our human nature– our little economy.
“We know from ... passages in the Gospels that a certain preparedness or provisioning for the future is required of us.” (Berry 941) We also know that “Gluttony” is one of the “seven deadly sins” in the Christian faith. Here we can see a clear distinction of how little is too little or how far is too far. To not work at all, or secure ourselves any provisions for future use, will land us like the grasshopper in the “Grasshopper and the Ants.” We will be cold, starving, and eventually die if we do not care for ourselves. However, to use in excess, or grow fat off our own labors by providing for ourselves more than we could ever want or need, is to commit Gluttony. This idea of Moderation, or a balance between the two, resonates very clearly, not only in a Christian sense, but in a Buddhistic sense. E. F. Schumacher writes, “The ownership and the consumption of goods is a means to an end, and Buddhist economics is the systematic study of how to attain given ends with the minimum means.” (Schumacher 456) But how can “minimum means” be described on such a global level? One could easily argue that any First World country was guilty of Gluttony, even though many members within it may be hungry or unclothed. Or that it was the cause of a far greater Destruction than Creation, even though it may be the leader in progress to help solve problems that plague other nations. What can be said of a Third World country whose members are oppressed, forced to live in vile conditions for the sole empowerment of a single person or caste group? Surely we would not absolve them from the sins of Gluttony and Destruction, for they waste and destroy life, as well as Earthly “resources” in light of their own betterment. The only way to measure properly would be on an individual level, and even this has problems. If we take a man, who, in his childhood, was born into a well-off family, we would find that he may have practiced Gluttony of all kinds, eating when he did not feel like it, or acquiring toys he did not need. Perhaps when that man grew up and was on his own, he had a hard time economically getting up on his feet, and for a while, he practiced the very best kind of Moderation. Would that absolve him from the sin he committed as a child? Especially when, as a child, he could not understand the ill effects of his bad nature? And what if that man were to lapse back into Gluttony, once he was married and economically secure, and he showered his wife and children with an abundance of gifts and food as he was when he was little? It should be observed that while this man through out his life may or may not commit Gluttony, he was always working to gain the fruits that would either cause him to be a sinner or allow him to live in Moderation. Never did his hand stay like the man who lays out on the street begging for pennies. He performed his necessary tasks to keep himself alive, and furthermore, he spread the goodwill towards those that he loved, his family. While it may be in excess, this man is far better than the penniless man who refuses to work, or the dictator who forces his slaves to work and does none himself. Here we come to a final point.
Schumacher quotes Kumarappa, “If the nature of work is properly appreciated and applied, it will stand in the same relation to the higher faculties as food is to the physical body. It nourishes and enlivens the higher man and urges him to produce the best he is capable of. It directs his free will along the proper course and disciplines the animal in him into progressive channels. It furnishes an excellent background for man to display his scale of values and develop his personality.” To this effect, is work is done in a manner that a man feels is constructive and worth his efforts, it is positive and good, and enrichens him, not only with the acquirement of wealth or fruits, but with the feeling of “a job well done,” and effort well received. This is the difference between a man who enjoys his job for the sake of getting things done that he sees a positive future towards, and a man who dislikes his job and finds only hatred or loathing for performing that which he works on. The man who works with only for gain of wealth, and in a unattestably bitter manner, is one who does commit Gluttony. Therefore, any man who works for the provision of himself and his family, with that in mind, is a good man. Any man, who works on Sunday at home fixing things or making repairs because he does not have time during the other days of the week, is not a bad man, for even though he works on the Sabbath as he is not supposed to, he is doing so for himself and his family to improve their life, with that in mind. A poor man, who barely manages to get by, and thus does not tithe at his church, is not a bad man, for he must provide for himself and those he loves first and foremost, and with that in mind, should not have to give to others if it would be at the expense of himself. If a Man’s heart is in the right place, that is what matters overall.
This is the junction between Religion and Science. “In a good human economy, these transformations would be made by good work, which would be properly valued and the workers properly rewarded. But a good human economy would recognize at the same time that it was dealing all along with materials and powers that it did not make. It did not make trees, and it did not make the intelligence and talents of the human workers.” (Berry 943) As humans, we can make what we wish, perhaps do so in excess, but we should always keep in mind the nature of our Earth, and that it has secured us that ability and provides for us and our development.
They say that Science and Religion are the opposite sides of a coin, and maybe in a way they are right. However, a coin is not a coin unless it has both sides, and in this way, Science and Religion are irrevocably connected, and one cannot exist without the existence of the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:54 pm
Charlottte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wall-paper
Passage: (809-810)
Part I: OED Definitions
1. “...and hardly lets me stir without special direction.”
a. “Movement, considered in contrast to or as an interruption of rest or stillness; slight or momentary movement; movement of disturbance, agitation.”
b. “Commotion, disturbance, tumult; general excitement; fuss.”
c. “To move (a limb or member); chiefly, now almost always, in negative or similar expressions: to make any or the slightest movement with.”
d. “A prison.”
2. “It was a nursery first and then playroom and gymnasium, ...”
a. “A place or building for practice of or instruction in athletic exercises; a gymnastic school.”
b. “To train, exercise, lit. to train naked.”
3. “...for the windows are barred for little children, ...”
a. “Secured, enclosed, or shut with bars.”
b. “Having, or furnished with, a bar or bars.”
c. “To fasten in, shut up, or confine securely (a person or thing) by means of bars.”
d. “To close or obstruct (a way of approach) by some barrier; to block up, make impassable.”
e. “To obstruct, stop, or prevent (a person's progress, or a person in his progress).”
f. “To stay or arrest (an action); to exclude or prevent the advancement of (a plea, claim, right.)”
g. “To hinder, exclude, keep back, prevent, prohibit (a person) from; to deprive or debar of.”
4. “One of those sprawling flamboyant patterns committing every artistic sin.”
a. “An act which is regarded as a transgression of the divine law and an offence against God; a violation (esp. willful or deliberate) of some religious or moral principle.”
b. “To offend against some principle, standard, etc.; to be faulty or wrong.”
5. “...they suddenly commit suicide– plunge off...”
a. “One who dies by his own hand; one who commits self-murder. Also, one who attempts or has a tendency to commit suicide.”
b. “The or an act of taking one's own life, self-murder.”
c. “To commit suicide.”
d. “To do to death.”
6. “The color is repellent, almost revolting;”
a. “ The action of the verb; rebellion, insurrection.”
b. “That repels; repulsive, disgusting.”
The narrator mentions the use of the room she must occupy was a “nursery first and then a playroom and gymnasium” (809). The use of gymnasium, which comes from the Greek gymnos, meaning naked, implies the ‘stripping down’ of the narrator’s rights as a person. She is literally forced to become intellectually and societally ‘naked’, and is left exposed to the oppressiveness of her husband and the wallpaper in the story. In the same sort of way, the implication that the room was also once a nursery transforms her into a rather useless garden plant, or a small crying child who is consistently ignored despite its pleas.
Very similarly we can see this in both the symbolism of the bars on the windows of the room, as well as the many meanings of the word. Not only do they confine her to one space physically, but they “prevent her advancement” of ‘getting well’ or being listened to. She is both physically and mentally stuck in a sort of prison, which, interestingly enough, is one of the meanings for “stir”.
Part II: Personification: “One of those sprawling flamboyant patterns committing every artistic sin. It is dull enough to confuse the eye in following, pronounced enough to constantly irritate and provoke study, and when you follow the lame uncertain curves for a little distance they suddenly commit suicide– plunge off at outrageous angles, destroy themselves in unheard of contradictions.”
The use of personification to describe the narrator’s first initial contact with the yellow wallpaper cues us, as readers, to the fact that this wallpaper she describes is already starting to have an effect on her. It comes through clearly she has an aversion to the paper, a gut-reaction as she attempts to understand it through artistic study, but must all the more draw away from it. The act of the paper’s ‘ability’ to “commit” “sin” and “suicide” suggests that the narrator, who ought to blame the designer of the paper, or the persons who originally put it up in the room, gives the wallpaper life from the off, allowing it to affect her in a very oppressive way. The use of the word “suicide” in particular, draws all the more attention to the fact that, in her mind, the paper is capable of murder to some degree.
The narrator also chooses to describe the paper as having “a sickly sulphur tint” (810). It is interesting that in the very same room her husband John supposes she will be able to “absorb [air] all the time” is the room she accuses of being sulfurous; sulfur having the reputation of horrible odor (809). Sulfur also brings up images of ‘hellfire and brimstone’, casting the room as possessing some sort of hellish air. Sulfur is also used as an ingredient in the creation of gunpowder and fungicide, two substances which elicit feelings of death. Combining this with the fact that the tint is also “sickly”, and we have a very visceral picture of this gross room she has already preconceived it to be.
Part III: Allusion to “piazza” and “chintz”; architecture and textiles.
As found in the OED, a piazza is described as: “A colonnade or covered gallery surrounding an open square; a single gallery or walk of this kind in front of a building. The veranda or porch of a house.” While chintz is described as: “A name for the painted or stained calicoes imported from India; now, a name for cotton cloths fast-printed with designs of flowers, etc., in a number of colours, generally not less than five, and usually glazed.”
It is interesting to note that the room the narrator desired to stay in most was one that was very open to the environment, had the nice sight and smell of roses, and lots of vibrant colors. And yet, the one she is forced to stay in has bars on the windows, is unfurnished (until they bring up some furniture), and reeks of the smell of the old yellow wallpaper. The narrator describes the “chintz hangings” as being “old-fashioned” (809). At the time, (1891 being the time of publishing) chintz would likely be common, but depending on just how “old-fashioned” it was, the hangings could have at some point been imported illegally, as there were a number of bans on Indian chintz imports all over Europe (late 1600s through 1700s). Though our story takes place in America, the narrator does describe the house to be quite old, considering the “ancestral halls” of which she speaks; the house existed during colonial times during British rule ( “colonial mansion” ), so the possibility is open (80 cool . While this still seems very unlikely, regardless as to the chintz’s ‘integrity’, it is potentially important to note the connotation of ‘illegalness’ to the chintz in the room she would rather occupy. Seeing as the narrator is a woman, and she wishes to make a decision for herself, by herself, this could be, in some loose way, considered illegal, and aligning her would-be actions with the illegalness of the chintz. However, she is not allowed to make this choice, and is forced into obeying her husband’s decision.
Part IV: Pattern: Narrator’s references to John, both his name and his person.
• Narrator expresses that she gets “unreasonably angry with John sometimes” (809)
• John tells the narrator she will “neglect proper self-control” so she takes “pains to control myself– before him, at least” (809)
• Narrator expresses her desire to occupy the downstairs bedroom, “But John would not hear of it” (809)
• Narrator speaks of their living arrangement, and that “He said there was only one window and not room for two beds” (809)
• “He is very careful and loving, and hardly lets me stir without special direction.” (809)
• Narrator mentions “he takes all care from me, and I feel so basely ungrateful not to value it more” (809)
• Narrator reiterates that “He said we came here solely on my account” (809)
• Narrator writes, “There comes John, and I must put this away– he hates to have me write a word” (810)
The narrator’s obsession with John, like the wallpaper, is quite apparent. Throughout the passage, she cannot help but return to him, expressing what he said this time or that time or the other time. It is clear how important John, and his opinions, are to her, as she “takes pains to control [herself]” in front of him, even though it “makes her very tired” (809). The narrator also decides to include that “[John] said we came here solely on [her] account,” a statement that would seem to suggest that the whole trip and ‘rest-cure’ had been her idea, rather than his. The fact that she is willing to accept this notion shows both her devotion and respect of him, in spite of her own gut reactions. She insists to the reader, and potentially more importantly herself, that John only means well by everything he is doing and/or forcing upon her– “he is very careful and loving” she writes (809). And yet, she must hastily “put this away” because “he hates to have [her] write a word” (810). It would seem that every personal right of hers is taken away, either by her husband or the wallpaper, which both keep a very watchful, literal or figural, eye over her. The oppressiveness of John is clearly embedded in her subconscious, but she is not able to tap into it, even through her writing. She expresses that he “hardly lets me stir without special direction” and “he takes all care from me”, to which her expression that she “gets unreasonably angry with John sometimes” seems rather reasonable (809). She realizes that she does “not value” that which John is doing ‘for her’, and accuses herself of being “basely ungrateful” when she should be grateful. The truth would seem to be the reverse.
Part V: Conclusion
Many things are at work in this small passage of the story. Most prominently, we get the narrator’s initial meeting with and interaction with the wallpaper of her room, and a glimpse through her eyes of her situation, including, but not limited to, the ‘caring oppressiveness’ of her husband John.
When the narrator first ‘meets’ the wallpaper, she immediately allows it to form its own identity, or rather, give it an identity. This identity, while at first conceived to be very hostile by the narrator, “This paper looks to me as if it knew what a vicious influence it had!” she writes (811); slowly changes and morphs, first into a seemingly harmless trapped woman– “...it becomes bars! The outside pattern, I mean, and the woman behind it is as plain as can be.” (815)– then, horrifyingly, herself. “ “I’ve got out at last,” said I, “in spite of you and Jane! And I’ve pulled off most of the paper, so you can’t put me back!” ” (819). It is certainly bitter irony when she expresses early on that “I should hate it myself if I had to live in this room long.” (810) seeing as it becomes, within three months, the only thing she lives for– “You see I have something more to expect, to look forward to, to watch.” (816)– and the thing which she embodies and indeed emulates; “I always lock the door when I creep by daylight.” she writes (817). Even the way that she adds yet another layer to her confinement by locking the door to the room, draws sharp parallels to her subdued condition of mindless acceptance.
What causes her to make this ‘jump’ in her own consciousness though, is debatable, but is certainly deeper than ‘pleading insanity’, as it were. Crucial is that she allows John, as well as social convention, to oppress her, without a real thought of it being ‘oppression’. Instead, she tacks on words such as ‘professional’, ‘practical’, and ‘caring’ to make things right inside her head. While she frequently chooses to voice her feelings, such as in regards to the wallpaper and room, she is always turned down, and she eventually ‘comes to terms with’ them, admitting that John was right in the first place; “But he is right enough about the beds and windows and things.” she writes (810). Rather carelessly she is willing to throw her own ideas out the window in lieu of her husband’s, because she herself is so shallowly engaged with her subconscious– the true intellectual being that we can read so clearly through her diary that she would surely become without the stifling oppression– “Personally, I disagree with their ideas.” (80 cool . Unfortunately, “personally”, is all the further this train of thought goes, if that far.
The narrator’s inability to draw any sort of clear line from her subconscious to her conscious, even at the start of the story, makes it all the less surprising that she goes ‘mad’, as her original distinctions between sanity and madness were already blurred by the oppression pinning her. She arrives a socially confined woman, remains confined physically and intellectually in the room, and eventually escapes from confinement by way of insanity. Once she is free of the bindings of sanity, she chooses to remain ‘confined’ even though she is also now physically free of both the torn wallpaper and her fainted husband. The door is wide open, but she continues to “creep” along her “path by the wall” (819). She is finally able to occupy that room that “open on the piazza” with the “pretty old-fashioned chintz hangings” but it is no longer important to her because she has found freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 12:56 pm
“The Yellow Wall-paper”
At the conclusion of “The Yellow Wall-paper”, one may reflect and ask themselves what caused the narrator’s ‘downfall’. On the surface, it would appear that the wallpaper, which the story mainly revolves around, was the culprit. Deeper reading might suggest that the husband, John, was entirely at fault for her eventual demise. Other readings could allow for the possibility that the narrator herself was the cause for her own insanity, and that outside factors were only part of the influence; in a way, that it was ‘all in her head’. My own personal proposition is that all three had a share in her transformation; ultimately claiming that the original seeds were sown by her husband, that this process was greatly furthered within the confines of her own mind, and that the final straw was the wallpaper, with which she was forced a long and consistent physical company.
To the narrator, John is a constant and prominent figure who captures her attention frequently throughout the text, as she mentions him proliferously. John embodies the very essence of human reasoning and societal normalities set in the time of the text, and by his rigidity in this respect, he inadvertently begins the process of transformation the narrator undergoes. She writes, “John is practical in the extreme. He has no patience with faith, an intense horror of superstition, and he scoffs openly at any talk of things not to be felt and seen and put down in figures.” (80 cool This portrayal of him elicits neither admiration nor intimidation on her part, but rather serves to explain to us, as readers, what she must put up with and why. Her obsession with him, however, seems natural, indeed stemming from the fact that he is the most dominant influence on her current conditions, and that by his mere dictation, he decides for her what it is they, or she, is to do. He chooses, for her, her cure, her prescription, her room, her furnishings, and appears to purposefully box her in and disagree with her at every turn, because he ‘knows what is best’. This phenomenon results, partially because John is a man, partially because he is her husband, and partially because of the fact that he is a ‘physician of high standing’. The narrator’s suggestions then, as a woman and someone not of prowess in his field, go unheeded and are ignored in the name of what is ‘proper’. The final time she chooses to speak to John about her condition, and asks that he ‘take her away’ from the mansion, he addresses her in a way that is very similar to every other time she attempts to voice her opinion. “Of course if you were in any danger, I could and would, but you really are better, dear, whether you can see it or not. I am a doctor, and I know.” (814) We, as readers, can see the irony he accidentally presents, and so can the narrator, as she retells us: “He laughed a little the other day, and said I seemed to be flourishing in spite of my wall-paper. I turned it off with a laugh. I had no intention of telling him it was because of the wall-paper.” (816) This very much heralds her continuing transformation, which she undergoes entirely under his nose until the final scene. Without so much as a say of her own destinies, the narrator is not able to physically escape from the confinement John puts on her, and this physical captivity definitely plays as one key in her transformation. If she were allowed to seek others’ company, take care of her baby, or carry out her regular house duties, there is reason to believe that she would have continued to live like she always had before she was taken to the mansion to be subjected to the ‘rest cure’. This leads into the question of how the narrator’s mental state also has a hand in her eventual transformation.
The narrator’s inability to draw any sort of clear line from her subconscious to her conscious is another factor which is responsible for ‘condemning’ her to her fate. Frequently in her writing, she expresses sentiments that would indicate she does not and will not stand for the way she is being treated. However, for the most part, she ignores, and in fact does not even seem to realize, her own true feelings. While the narrator’s subconscious screams to be let out, and shines through in her journalling, her conscious repeatedly suppresses it in whatever way it can. She writes:
“If a physician of high standing, and one’s own husband, assures friends and relatives that there is really nothing the matter with one but temporary nervous depression– a slight hysterical tendency– what is one to do?
My brother is also a physician, and also of high standing, and he says the same thing.
So I take phosphates or phosphites– whichever it is– and tonics, and journeys, and air, and exercise, and am absolutely forbidden to ‘work’ until I am well again.
Personally, I disagree with their ideas.
Personally, I believe that congenial work, with excitement and change, would do me good.
But what is one to do?” (80 cool
A number of things are at work here in this passage. The first to note is how she regards the whole situation. The narrator repeats the words ‘but what is one to do?’ in a rather wistful fashion, suggesting that she believes she has no control over the situation at all. Instead, while she knows her own body and what should likely be actually done for it, she dismisses her own cogitations on the subject, in lieu of someone’s ‘more qualified’ opinion. It is also important to notice in this passage that she does not singularly align her husband with the situation, but includes a second man– her brother– into the picture. We get an even clearer sense that the narrator is willing to subterfuge her judgments in consideration to the dominant male, a cage she is obviously used to. Her comment ‘phosphates or phosphites– whichever it is’ implies further her distancing from the ‘scientific’ aspect of matter at hand, and from taking any active participation in ‘modern medicine’ practices, likely because she does not consider it to be her place or role to do so. Her mental prison closes in on her, stifling her true person via her acceptance and subsidence to her condition as a woman, and the social conventions therein. Again and again we see her offer her own self up as a sacrifice to the edifice of sociological misdemeanor; she allows her condition to worsen, and embraces it. Her gradual embracement of her inevitable transformation brings us to the the final straw– the yellow wallpaper.
The wallpaper, that so captures all her inner emotions when she first lays eyes on it, is what allows the narrator to formulate her true embodiment outside her trapped sociological self, and in so doing, finishes her transformation into the realm of insanity and absolute freedom. This first encounter with the wallpaper, while exceedingly hostile, gives way into her original insights towards a struggling, tormented entity that is much, though she does not realize it consciously at all, like herself. Her description follows:
“One of those sprawling flamboyant patterns committing every artistic sin.
It is dull enough to confuse the eye in following, pronounced enough to constantly irritate and provoke study, and when you follow the lame uncertain curves for a little distance they suddenly commit suicide– plunge off at outrageous angles, destroy themselves in unheard of contradictions.”
Even in this initial contact, the narrator struggles to understand the wallpaper and all of its twists and turns and patterns. She desires to be able to follow it, to unlock its under and overlying layers, and reach its depth, but is, at first, unable. This is a very clear parallel to her own self perception, and the struggle to understand her own self. Upon her arrival, she does not fathom that which she truly is. Also key in this passage is that she immediately grants the wallpaper a life of its own, an identity, much like a real person. While inanimate objects are evidently unable to actually transgress against any law or cease its own existence and being, the narrator’s sentiments suggest that, like a person, the wallpaper is capable of both– ‘sin’ and ‘suicide’. She is quite affected by it at all times, and it gives her a heavy feeling of oppressiveness. “This paper looks to me as if it knew what a vicious influence it had!” she writes (811). Slowly, however, we start to pick up on a change in her demeanor towards the wallpaper, a change that is directly proportional to the amount of ‘study’ she has given towards unlocking it; this change of attitude is a very direct link to what she sees inside the paper, as the original identity she gave it morphs inside her mind as she increasingly relates the wallpaper’s identity with her own, first perceiving eyes, then a woman, then bars. This emotional alignment supersedes her mental and physical alignments as well, that is, by way of the wallpaper, she can ‘free’ not only it, and the ‘woman inside’, but herself in so doing. In a way, her revelation bonds her to the paper, as if they were one in the same. When she tears down the paper and returns to her insidious act of ‘creeping’, she proclaims to John, “I’ve got out at last, in spite of you and Jane! And I’ve pulled off most of the paper, so you can’t put me back!” (819) At this stage of the text, the narrator has fulfilled her transformation, and has reached, as she so aptly communicates, the point of no return.
The narrator’s transformation– an overdue surge into personal understanding and unparalleled freedom– is a process finally brought about by the optimal conditions and circumstances. Without the physical restraints of her own husband, or the mental restraints bred in her mind by societal norms, or the ability of the wallpaper to act as a spiritual mirror that allowed her to transcend all human boundaries and even existence itself, the change could not have occurred, or would have continued to stagnate inside her, trapped, likely forever. Her journey, at long last traveled, has led her to a new existence– madness– where no one or no thing can infringe on her individual freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
