Essays – Papers

Approaches of Frederick Douglass and Mark Twain
in Presenting the Black Experience

Frederick Douglass’s autobiographical portrayal in The Narrative of a Slave and Mark Twain’s characterization of Jim in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are demonstrative of the differences between the Enlightenment period and the Romantic period. Douglass looks at events and uses reason to reach into our minds and eradicate our ignorance, while Twain allows the humanity of Jim to reach into our hearts and dissolve our indifference. Both characters clearly teach their reader, primarily white Americans, that slaves are not inhuman chattel to be dominated but human beings capable of reaching great depths both intellectually and emotionally. The different methods used to define the characters of Douglass and Jim accomplish a similar goal while taking different roads.

Douglass writes of himself in the first person narrative in the voice of an experienced and learned adult who is able to portray the horrors of slavery without depending upon sentimentality. Reading Douglass’s account of life on the plantation, the rational person can envision the pain and despair without actually knowing the thoughts of the victim. Douglass is able to step back from his anger and express opinions on the reasons men feel justified in placing the yoke around other men. Douglass’s voice throughout Narrative could also be seen as a warning to the oppressors that the vile actions, once ignored, will no longer be tolerated. The character in this book does not merely report, but demonstrates the growing insurgence occurring among slaves because of the brutal treatment of the slaveholder. Douglass’s fervor to learn to read shows that the harder the slaveholder applied pressure the stronger the desire was to fight back. I see this as a diplomatic declaration of war. Douglass not only educates “white America” by telling his tale, but also shows consistently that the slaves will not merely succumb, but will invariably strike back. By gently taking off the gloves, Douglass puts the reader on alert that this miserable state will no longer be tolerated.

Jim’s description is filtered through the eyes of Huckleberry Finn, via the pen of Mark Twain. It is important to remember that Huck Finn is a young person who looks at life with the innocence of childhood and the ignorance of the unlearned. Twain uses this method to allow readers to formulate their own conclusions without the tedium of a Sunday Mass. Twain dispels the belief that African Americans lack humanity and moral conviction by giving Jim one of the central voices in the novel, and demonstrating Jim’s capacity to feel deep, human emotions.

Both characters teach that slavery is an abomination, one intellectually and the other emotionally. These two approaches are complements that used together are tantamount to a full-blown attack on prejudice. The two lone voices of Douglass and Jim, although singing acappella, can easily fill a cathedral of the soul.

When Words Do Not Mean What They Say – An Analysis of Swift’s “Modest Proposal”

Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal is an effective piece of satire and merits closer study. It is interesting not only in the absurdity of it’s sly innuendo, but it also acts as a history lesson for the world to see the struggles of the people of Ireland. In A Modest Proposal Swift is able to show compassion through the context of the imagery of Ireland’s suffering painted by the author in a work whose literal words would normally shock and anger any sane person. His careful use of language and imagery manages to both sicken and illuminate the reader. Sheer shock value grabs the careful attention and scrutiny of the reader and, in doing so, accomplishes it’s goal, to awaken and alarm those who ignore the tragedy of Ireland’s plight.

From the onset Swift’s speaker tries to visually establish an empathy between the reader and the impoverished Irish: “It is a melancholy object to those, who walk through this great town, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads and cabbin-doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags, and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in stroling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants . . ..” (Swift, 425) As the reader pictures the brutal conditions, anguish and despair of Ireland’s poor, mainly women and children, Swift’s speaker takes the cold and impersonal term “beggar” and humanizes it. The image of young mothers begging in the street with their children, common enough at that time, sets up the reader for shock and disdain at Swift’s proposal. Swift, by warning that “I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection,” is telling the reader to be ready for something that is likely to cause objection. He says this in a genteel voice that seems impassive as it delivers his understatement. The term “least objection” later becomes satirical.

Swift does not intend the reader to take him seriously and goes so far as to say he does not have the answers but seeks them: “whoever could find out a fair, cheap and easy method of making these children sound and useful members of the common-wealth, would deserve so well of the publick, as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.” (426). He does not say that he himself has the answer. Instead, he states that a person who can come up with a successful proposal would save and be the hero of Ireland. By entitling his “modest proposal” as he did, he is saying that he is NOT going to propose something of heroic dimensions and therefore, he will not be “preserver of the nation.”

He subtlety says, “get ready”, and than proceeds to throw images and words that represent the very thing that England was, at that time, doing to Ireland: devouring the poor. Although the feeding of the rich on the flesh of the poor was described vividly as a tangible reality, it is clear that it was meant to symbolize what England was doing to the people, primarily the Catholics of Ireland, through both political and economic oppression. In case the reader misses the symbolism, Swift states it outright: “we can incur no danger in disobliging England. . . . although perhaps I could name a country, which would be glad to eat up our whole nation without it.” (429) In stating this he is showing the disdain England feels toward the Irish, so much so that they would be willing to devour simply for the pleasure of it.

Swift intimates at practical suggestions for improving the condition of Ireland’s economy and helping its people, and this was, in truth, the aim of his modest proposal. Underneath all the startling, sarcastic and vile imagery, Swift’s proposals were strong and, given serious attention, would have accomplished much: “… taxing our absentees . . . using neither cloaths, nor houshold furniture, except … of our own growth and manufacture . . . rejecting the materials and instruments that promote foreign luxury . . . curing the expensiveness of pride, vanity, idleness, and gaming in our women . . . introducing a vein of parsimony, prudence and temperance . . . learning to love our country . . . putting a spirit of honesty, industry, and skill into our shop-keepers . . .” These ideas Swift claims to not wish to discuss until, “he hath at least some glympse of hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice.” (429) In stating this, then continuing on with his proposal to kill, eat, skin and breed small children, one is forced to reconsider, with “some glimpse of hope” alternatives to Ireland’s plight.

Swift goes further: “politicians who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold to attempt an answer, that they will first ask the parents of these mortals, whether they would not at this day think it a great happiness to have been sold for food at a year old, in the manner I prescribe, and thereby have avoided such a perpetual scene of misfortunes.” This statement sums up the horror of Ireland’s existence, the depth of its despair and the bleakness of its outlook. Swift comes out and says that the poor of Ireland would rather have died, to have been butchered and eaten, than to live as they do today. That there exists so little life or hope in the heart of the Irish people that to have been a meal for a overindulged, wealthy diner would be preferable to living. This proposal, clearly would have enraged those in the upper levels of society, for it depicts them as inhuman, cannibalistic, insensitive monsters. However, the proposal might also have enraged the Irish poor. Through its satiric and vivid imagery Swift shows the Irish people how they are viewed as animals being led to the slaughter while, at the same time, proposes subtly ways that their conditions could be changed if they leaned to help themselves.

Swift, through this short satirical work, manages to scold, expose, warn, propose and educate. He neither writes volumes nor stands on a podium preaching, rather, he chooses the right words and imagery to convey, in a brief and darkly humorous way, all of the messages intended for the reader. His small pamphlet, therefore, takes on epic proportions as it educates the reader not only about what is going on, but would could happen. Shining a glaring spotlight at the dark predicament of the Irish through his illuminating work, Swift becomes a catalyst to change and A Modest Proposal earns a place in history.

————————————————-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Homer’s Use of Epic Similes in Conveying Mood in the Iliad

            The Iliad, an epic poem written by Homer which seeks to chronicle the Trojan war, is laced with epic similes in an effort to convey the mood of the described action.  Briefly, one of the characteristics of the epic poem is that it takes factual events and laces them with grandiose imagery and the intervening of the Greek gods.  Homer does this in a very vivid and stark manner by relating the action to nature in ways which the reader could personally identify with.  For purposes of this paper only a brief section of The Iliad will be used.  In the scene we are examining Achilles, filled with rage over the death of Patroclus, seeks to destroy Hector.  Hector, against the counsel of his parents, leaves the safety of Troy and ventures out of its walls to confront Achilles.  Both Hector and Achilles are heroes to their armies, and thus, their battle is a major turning point in this poem; therefore, Homer uses a number of extended epic similes to bring this battle to life for the reader.  His use; however, of these similes gives insight into how Homer saw, and wanted the reader to see, both Hector and Achilles.

            Once Hector is outside the walls of Troy Homer describes him, awaiting Achilles arrival, through a simile:

No, he waited Achilles, coming on, gigantic in power. 

As a snake in the hills, guarding his hole, awaits a man–

bloated with poison, deadly hatred seething inside him,

glances flashing fire as he coils round his lair . .  .

so Hector, nursing his quenchless fury, gave no ground,

leaning his burnished shield against a jutting wall,

but harried still, he probed his own brave heart: (111-117)

 

This simile compares Hector to a snake guarding his hole.  Notably, he is not described as a vicious predator but rather a viper who sits in wait.  Although a snake is deadly, it traditionally strikes, biting once with its poison.  This is ironic as later in the action when Hector does strike at Achilles he too strikes out only once to sting him with his spear.  The mood Homer sets in anticipation of the battle is one of Achilles the predator, and Hector his prey.

            This mood is reinforced when Achilles arrives to begin pursuit.  Close examination of this simile is telling of future events as well as Homer’s opinion on the two soldiers.

Hector looked up, saw him, started to tremble,

nerve gone, he could hold his ground no longer,

he left the gates behind and away he fled in fear –

and Achilles went for him, fast, sure of his speed

as the wild mountain hawk, the quickest thing on wings,

launching smoothly, swooping down on a cringing dove

and the dove flits out from under, the hawk screaming

over the quarry, plunging over and over, his fury

driving him down to beak and tear his kill–

so Achilles flew at him, breakneck on in fury

with Hector fleeing along the walls of Troy,

fast as his legs would go.  On and on they raced . . . (163-173)

 

Hector, who lays in wait, upon seeing Achilles sure of himself and able, begins to flee.  Homer’s use of the epic simile in this case is a forewarning of how the race will ultimately end, “as the wild mountain hawk, the quickest thing on wings,” (166) which  tells the reader that Achilles will not be outrun by Hector – inevitably, Achilles will overtake his fleeing opponent.  Homer further develops the mood he wishes to convey through a comparison of the two birds which represent the soldiers.  Achilles’ representative hawk, “the hawk screaming over the quarry, plunging over and over, his fury driving him down to beak and tear his kill–” (168-170) shows passion, bravery and fury.  In the meantime Hector’s representative dove is used to expose his fearfulness, insecurity and lack of strength, “swooping down on a cringing dove and the dove flits out from under.” (167-168)  The savageness Homer attributes to the hawk, and thus Achilles is a stark contrast to the peaceful dove who in his cringing fear merely flits about. 

            Yet, although it is clear that the two soldiers are not equal in ability or passion, Homer moves toward a new simile to describe the action as it unfolds.  Although at first Achilles seeks to destroy Hector to avenge Patroclus, he, as well as Hector, are compared to stallions running a race. 

Past these they raced, one escaping, one in pursuit

and the one who fled was great but the one pursuing

greater, even greater–their pace mounting in speed

since both men strove, not for a sacrificial beast

or oxhide trophy, prizes runners fight for, no,

they raced for the life of Hector breaker of horses.

Like powerful stallions sweeping round the post for trophies,

galloping full stretch with some fine price at stake

a tripod, say, or woman offered up at funeral games

for some brave hero fallen–so the two of them

whirled three times around the city of Priam,

sprinting at top speed while the gods gazed down, (188-199)

 

            The armies of the time took spoils from battle, such as women, which in this poem are antagonists to the action, so this simile is befitting and ironic for “Like powerful stallions sweeping round the post for trophies, galloping full stretch with some fine price at stake a tripod, say, or woman offered up…” (194-196) here Homer shows that the race, the quest, is similar to that of an animal trained only to win without reason.  The trophy being the only award, but what value does a trophy have to a horse whether he wins or loses?  In this scene the race between Hector and Achilles is compared to an event which is nothing more than sport, yet we know that the prize was in fact the life of Hector.  It seems likely that Homer was showing how ridiculous the two soldier’s looked in using their prowess to accomplish nothing substantial in the end while, simultaneously, foreshadowing Hector’s inevitable death as both men, “raced for the life of Hector” (193) who, ironically is the breaker of horses.

            As the chase progresses it takes on a different tone as both soldier’s, weary from the chase, lose the original fury and fear and fall into a more domestic role, such as the hunting dog and it’s prey.  Dogs, raised to hunt, do not think nor feel anything about their pursuit but do it out of repetition and duty.  Knowing the job ahead yet not personally involved seems to be the imagery which Homer begins to describe.

And swift Achilles kept on coursing Hector, nonstop

as a hound in the mountains starts a fawn from its lair,

hunting him down the gorges, down the narrow glens

and the fawn goes to ground, hiding deep in brush

but the hound comes racing fast, nosing him out

until he lands his kill.  So Hector could never throw

Achilles off his trail, the swift racer Achilles– (224-230)

 

The hound, “starts a fawn from its lair, hunting him down the gorges . . . until he lands his kill.” (225-229)  The fawn on the other hand is helpless as the relentless of pursuit of the hound inevitably lands his kill, thus, Homer tells us through this simile what is about to occur.

            After racing three times around the walls of Troy Achilles is approached by Athena who tells him that she plans to intercede on his behalf.  This renews Achilles at a time during the chase where he was slowly wearing down from hawk, to stallion, to hound.  This renewal is also given to Hector through Athena’s ruse.  Disguising herself as Deiphobus, Athena assures Hector that together they would defeat Achilles, so, momentarily, Hector is portrayed not as the inevitable victim, but with bravery that Homer briefly describes in a less descriptive and less wordy simile. 

he swooped like a soaring eagle

launching down from the dark clouds to earth

to snatch some helpless lamb or trembling hare.

So Hector swooped now, swinging his whetted sword (365-368)

 

            This in itself indicates the quickness in which Hector experiences the bravery, and the quickness in which it is lost.  The richness of detail and strength of words customary in Homer’s similes is missing here, as this simile represents a façade based on nothing of substance.  Even the wording in this simile betrays the softness which is real in Hector versus the momentary belief that he is at last the aggressor, “he swooped like a soaring eagle.”(365)  This is in contrast to his earlier simile describing Achilles approach as, “launching smoothly, swooping down on a cringing dove … screaming over the quarry, plunging over and over, his fury driving him down to beak and tear his kill “ (167-170)  He continues to say in this simile that Hector’s representative eagle “to snatch some helpless lamb or trembling hare” (367) which the reader is well aware is not the case. It shows, however, that the only reason that Hector is swooping at that moment is because he perceives Achilles to be helpless, and therefore, strikes only at that moment to take advantage of this.  This simile, kept in the context of Athena’s betrayals, which the reader is privy to, makes the simile take on an almost comical tone. 

            The use of the natural world in Homer’s similes allows the reader to feel the tempo of the story change.  To say that Achilles was coming after Hector, chased him around a while, tricked him then killed him would relate, like a news story, only the facts, but would leave the reader unable to empathize or understand the underlying mood of the moment.  Home draws the reader into the action by using similes that are relatable to the non soldier, thus, in feeling the characters as they pursue or are pursued the story becomes enriched and more understandable in a deeper, more basic way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions Faced on a Final Exam (6 years ago so not use using to cheat)

 

1. How do the literature and art of the Neoclassical Age of Reason reflect the intellectual and aesthetic values of the time? Write six (6) paragraphs, four (4) on writers, two (2) on art and music. Despite its varied content, please impose an overall structure.

Jonathan Swift was a product of the Neoclassical Age of Reason by virtue of his no-nonsense approach to the societal ills which plagued his time. His writing was not overly ornate, typical of Neoclassicism, and amplified the ludicrousness of excess. Swift took a scientific approach by using psychology in making us abhor that which is protagonist purported to love. An example of this can be found in his 1729 work, A Modest Proposal, supposedly written by an intelligent and objective “political arithmetician” who had carefully studied Ireland before making his proposal. The author scientifically (as is the usual approach of the Neoclassic Age of Reason) suggests one solution for both the problem of overpopulation and the growing number of undernourished people: breed those children who would otherwise go hungry or be mistreated in order to feed the general public. Although sound in economic theory, insane in actuality. This horrific approach was an effective deliverer of a profound message without virtue of standing on a pulpit.

Jean-Baptiste Poquelin Moliere was yet another satirist who managed to put forth his message without the frills and imagery which were frowned upon by the Neoclassical Age. In Tartuffe Moliere invented one of his famous comic types, that of a religious hypocrite. The play was so audacious that King Louis XIV, although he enjoyed it, did not permit a public performance for five years, fearing that it would offend the powerful French higher clergy. This play illustrates in a comic manner the neoclassical lesson of a man getting into trouble by failing to live by the neoclassical precept of moderation. It is an excellent example of using comedy to laugh people out of their foibles. In this play it is possible to place most of the characters into two categories: those who embody the neoclassical ideals and those who violate them.

Alexander Pope, author of Rape of the Lock, contributed with a mock-heroic epic which made many references to the Greek epics of which the Neoclassicist emulated. This is apparent through Pope’s use of the invocation to a deity; formal statement of theme; divisions into cantos; grandiose speeches (challenges, defiances, boasting) of heroes; and descriptions of games. Although in style one would assume this to be an epic poem, the ludicrousness of the subject matter, an excessive reaction to minor disturbance, classifies it as a mock epic only using these techniques. Again, the understanding of the importance of reason over emotion and moderation is exemplified.

Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire demonstrates the danger of blind faith with his story of excessive optimism. Here, the characters run through the novel on a quest, but not a quest of enlightenment but rather a quest for self-gratification. These excessive desires of the character lead to the inevitable consequence of their actions. Moderation was a cornerstone of the Neoclassic Age; but in Candide, moderation is never considered an option until the very end of the story. When finally the unhappy troupe finds themselves on the farm, they take time to reflect and cultivate their garden. Only by living this simplistic and uncorrupt lifestyle can the characters find peace and an end to their outrageous sufferings. Voltaire uses humor and the device of a quest to drive home the point of moderation and reason as the only true course to happiness.

Jacques-Louis David was the leader of the Neoclassical movement in France for the art of painting. He had visited Greece and Rome and fell in love with the classical styles. His first great success was the Oath of Horatio, a painting of a Roman father pledging his three sons to fight against the enemies of Rome. What makes the painting Neoclassic is the order and balance displayed in the proportioning all of the characters around the focal point (the swords), which is in the center, and how the mean appear both muscular and strong. The painting also expresses little emotion, which was typical of classical paintings and sculpture. The Death of Socrates, also by David, uses the same Neoclassical concept. The men in the picture look just like marble statues of the classical era. There is also a precise science to painting the lighting so it creates accurate shadows, as if the event portrayed is actually taking place. The message in all of David’s paintings was that men of principles should be willing to die in defense of their ideals. He also “emphasized the ideal of dedication to freedom and the glory of the sacrifice necessary to attain it.”

Orfeo ed Euridice, written by Christoph Gluck in 1762, was atypical of the Neoclassical Age of Reason. This opera, composed in Vienna, sought to do away with the sensationalism of the past and to restore the “primacy of plot and structure” and thus, was the first of the reform style of opera. Gluck established an equilibrium between music and drama which paved the way for the great Classic operas of Mozart. Gluck aimed to “make the music serve the poetry through its expression of the situations of the story, without interrupting it for conventional orchestral ritornellos or, particularly, florid and ornamental singing; to make the overture relevant to the drama and the orchestration apt to the words; to break down the sharp contrast between recitative and aria: ‘in short . . . to abolish all the abuses against which good sense and reason have long cried out in vain’.” Orfeo ed Euridice exemplifies the ornate mode of opera with a simple, direct plot based on straightforward human emotions which allowed the audience to empathize with the dramatic situations. He had a limited compositional technique, but one that was sufficient to meet his goals. His music can have driving energy, but also a serenity reaching to the sublime. His historical importance rests on his establishment of a new equilibrium between music and drama, and his greatness on the power and clarity with which he projected that vision; he dissolved the drama in music instead of merely illustrating it.

2. After Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) and the rise of industrial capitalism and middle class values, writers — the Russians, for example — often expressed indignation over what was becoming of civilization. Increasingly, literature dealt with “social problems.” Write six (6) paragraphs to show how nineteenth-century writers, despite the expressed interest of some like Flaubert and Chopin, focused on social concerns — often exposing society’s responsibility for the failed lives of fictional characters or confronting the smug middle class, as Baudelaire did, with a contrary vision.

William Blake, in writing Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience plainly points out the failure of society to prevent the cruelty of the “Lambs” which were commonly abused and sold on the streets of London. In Blake’s The Chimney Sweeper the narrator, a child, looks to the beauty of death as an alternative to his suffering. The horror intertwined in the innocent perspective of the child in lines such as “That thousands of sweepers, Dick, Joe, Ned & Jack,/Were all of them locked up in coffins of black;” is a chilling mirror held to the face of society, and thus, it is impossible to ignore. In Songs of Experience the counterpart to the innocent perspective is shown by the indictment of the hypocritical parents who would sell these children and proceed to church believing they will obtain redemption. Here, Blake indicts the blind eye used by the Christian society that would allow such evils to be perpetrated. Out of the mouth of babes come the nail in the coffin of the pious society which promotes this horror: “And are gone to praise God & his Priest and King,/Who make up a heaven of our misery.” Certainly indicative of writing aimed at societal wrongs.

Fyodor Dostoevsky clearly shows the failure of society through his character the Underground Man. In Notes From The Underground we are privy to a lost soul, the first example of the alienated antihero in modern literature, who knows and understands only pain, and thus does not attempt to push it away but rather embraces it. Underground Man is a victim of his youth, and the cruel treatment which he received. As a result, he grows into a self flagellating figure who laments his ability to reason and looks at ignorance as a blissful alternative. Underground Man has so aligned himself with pain, that happiness frightens him to self-destructive behavior. Notes From The Underground shows the results of a society which ostracizes its members, thereby isolating them not only physically but emotionally and intellectually.

Herman Melville, in writing Billy Bud, Sailor, shows how society preys upon innocence but ends with goodness triumphant. Billy Budd is a simple boy who finds himself aboard the Bellipotent, where he is beloved of all with the exception of Claggart. Claggart, through a series of evil manipulations, brings Bill before Captain Vere to face false accusations. Billy, shocked and enraged, lashes out and kills Claggart with a single blow. Vere is then forced by his strict adherence to what he believes to be society’s rules and regulations to pronounce a death sentence on Billy. Billy’s death; however, is a religious experience to the sailors when ”At the same moment it chanced that the vapory fleece hanging low in the East was shot through with a soft glory as of the fleece of the Lamb of God seen in mystical vision, and simultaneously therewith, watched by the wedged mass of upturned faces, Billy ascended, and, ascending, took the full rose of the dawn.” This allusion to Christ’s crucifixion shows that once again, as with the Savior, man has failed to recognize the importance of innocence and has allowed yet another Messiah to be sacrificed. Envy on the part of Claggart, and a lack of compassion on the part of the overly book fed Vere, is the cause of the death of Billy Budd.

Henrik Ibsen explores the consequence of the continued suppression of women in Hedda Gabler. Hedda was raised by her father and because of such she is accustomed to more masculine amusements, including playing with her guns. Although her father had introduced her to the male’s world, she is not allowed the benefits of such – even in regard to a useful education. Hedda suffers from an identity crisis which is typical of what is facing the middle-class woman during the transitional time. If women were to modify the socially accepted limiting codes of behavior, what rules would the “new woman” follow? Hedda herself is unable to resolve this issue and in belonging to both the old and new, is torn apart. Ibsen, in Hedda Gabler, explores the unhappy results of expecting women to conform to a social code that blames women for the failures of men, and expects young women to define themselves and their abilities solely within the parameters of marriage.

Anton Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard is a tale of the inability of a family to accept reality. A once well-to-do family finds that they are about to lose their beloved home and cherry orchard. Rather than attempting to find a feasible solution, they continue to live their smug middle class existence. They adopted this illusion to save their pride; however, the illusion inevitably becomes reality for the family. The family being too proud to accept that their social and financial status is in jeopardy, choose to live a life of illusion. In their imaginary existence, they would be fine. The illusion that they used to run their lives became the source of their downfall; however, as they grasped at the illusion so tightly, in hopes that it would replace reality, thus they did nothing to better their situation until it was too late. They were kicked out into the street and had all of their material possessions taken from them. The most important thing they owned, their status, now stripped away. Chekhov proves that pride truly does goeth before the fall, and in The Cherry Orchard, the fall from grace was inevitable albeit entirely preventable.

Frederick Douglas, author of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, an American Slave, undoubtedly wrote about societal concerns. His novel did not come to him as a result of an active imagination, but rather as a history of his life. This moving, enlightening piece of literature captures the essence of what life without hope means. Anyone reading this book would surely reflect on the horror that was the everyday world of the Southern black during the 1800s. Mr. Douglas’s honest and fair approach to telling not only his life story, but the story of all of those voices that would remain unheard, was by far the most poignant societal criticism written in the 19^th Century. Through his life of hardship and deprivation he strove to reach the light, and in doing so, was able to shine this light on the reader allowing many to comprehend or inflect on the horrific treatment of “People” whose only crime was the color of their skin.

3. Social pressures and upheavals activated many twentieth-century writers and artists to express political agendas, in an attempt to communicate messages regarding serious social issues that confront us — issues, for example, concerning war, colonialism, gender, class, and/or race. Write six (6) paragraphs focusing on five (5) writers and one (1) or more artists whose works examine and expose such social problems.

Doris Lessing explores the sensitive subject of the displacement of indigent people in her tale The Old Chief Mshlanga. Lessing notes that she was “a member of the white minority, pitted against a black majority that was abominably treated and still is.” Her disgust at the racial inequality of her adopted Africa compelled her to author tales expressing this injustice, such as The Old Chief Mshlanga. She sees that her people and the natives do not exist as equals. As a young person who still holds innocent ideals, she strives to understand why she and the black man cannot co-exist. As she believes, “there is plenty of room for all of us, without elbowing each other off the pavements and roads.” Although she observes the injustices perpetrated against the natives, she continues to behave as though somehow she can meet these people, and most importantly Chief Mshlanda, halfway. When she follows the Chief’s son, the cook in her own kitchen, to his village, it dawns on her that her belief that she is a native of the land is only an illusion. She is only a native of her own backyard. Later into the story, when her father impoverishes Chief Mshlanga’s village forcing them to relocate to a reservation, she realizes the wrongs committed by the whites, yet she feels powerless to change anything. She acknowledges this when saying “. . . Neither can one dismiss the past with a smile in an easy gush of feeling, saying: I could not help it, I am also a victim.”

Sula by Toni Morrison, explores the oppression of African American women even within their own ethnic group. Morrison touches upon the sensitive subject of what is entailed in behaving as society expects you to behave and the consequences of fighting against such predetermined role-play. Sula was an unrestrained spirit whose quest for inner peace was met with many byways of less than reputable behavior. This behavior was learned by Sula from both her mother and grandmother; however, they were more discreet and less noteworthy and therefore able to escape the witch-hunt that pursued Sula. Sula never learned morals yet was expected to demonstrate them. Where the entire town closed their eyes to the sad upbringing of this little girl, they were quite actively aware of the comings and goings of her life as an adult. Whatever ill befell the town, it was assumed Sula was behind it. Sula remained herself; however, and rather than hide away as her mother before her, she openly flaunted her right to be. The energy of the town grew with their hatred of the free-spirited Sula and Sula’s energy grew upon the hatred of the town. However, as is often the case, Sula meet with the one person whom she would change, as she sweeps the floors and changes the sheets to please him, and it is the capitulation to the stereotypical role for women that inevitably causes her death. Rejected as a ring seeking marriageable aged woman, Sula is thrown into a whirlwind of despair from which she never recovers. Had Sula not given in to the pressure to conform, perhaps that undefeatable air would have carried her on indefinitely. Certainly Sula challenges the party line of acceptable and non-acceptable behavior as it makes the temptress, Sula, pitiable to the reader.

 

 

How “crossing the border” has become a cultural patter
to Mexican and Central American Immigrants

 

“The U.S.-Mexican border es una herida abierta (is an open wound) where the third world grates against the first and bleeds” . . . “hemorrhages again, the lifeblood of two worlds merging to form a third country, a border culture.” (Anzaldua 1987).

 

Both the U.S. side and the Mexican side of the border have distinct political, economic, social and cultural systems. At the same time, people of the borderlands have blended the structures, institutions, and life expressions of the two societies to create something new. This border culture, blending aspects of both U.S. and Mexican cultures and values, is a marriage of economic necessity for the Mexican American. Although unprepared to cut ties with the homeland, many Mexicans elect to utilize opportunities present in America yet retain the culture and practices of their homeland.

Dual border interdependence borne of economic necessity and advantage, not only to the Mexican people but of the Anglo-American businesses, has combined to produce a culture that is uniquely its own and distinct from those of the two parent nations. Border Mexicans, Mexican Americans and Anglo-Americans intermingle at close range, borrowing from and contributing to each other’s cultures to form a “border culture.”

Mexicans on the Mexico side of the border, because of either their own migratory patterns or those of close family relations, have direct and/or indirect ties to America. Such links have resulted in heavy consumption of U.S. products and popular culture; however, Chicanismo remains strongly embedded among Mexican border residents. On the U.S. side, vast numbers of Mexican Americans maintain substantial bonds with Mexico, thus, they life a bi-cultural lifestyle. Out of economic necessity and by the sheer force of the U.S. “melting pot” phenomenon, most Mexican Americans of the borderlands, including many first-generation immigrants, have learned the English language and have absorbed large doses of American culture. At the same time, the proximity to Mexico has helped maintain a strong adherence to the Spanish language and the Mexican culture. This new cultural identity does not adhere itself to the Anglo Americans on either side of the border with such regularity as the Anglo American elects, rather than requires, to utilize the Mexico side of the border for economic gain.

The migratory nature of many of the Mexican immigrants is another aspect of the cultural genesis of the Mexican. Thrust between the two diametrically opposed cultures the Mexican migrant of the border region must learn to adapt to the needs of his mother country as he adopts from the U.S. characteristics which would enable him to succeed in his quest for economic stability. Unfortunately, because of the primary desire to retain a distinct cultural identity, many Mexican immigrants/migrants do not wish to give up their citizenship to Mexico, thus, they possess little voice in the laws of the U.S. Without the legal protection that the Constitution offers to the “citizens” of the United States, Mexican American’s are often victims of the underbelly of the American economy, as is evidenced in the sweatshops, maquilaoras, and poverty wages paid in the agricultural field. This treatment does little to encourage the Mexican American to desire citizenship in a country which shows little regard for them, thus, the Mexican enters a cylindrical process of abuse and rejection, abuse by the employers and government, rejection of them to emersion in U.S. culture. This cannot change as long as the Mexican does not become part of the exploitive system which it abhors; thus, change in this cycle will be slow in coming, if it comes at all. Therefore, the culture demonstrated by the Mexican American is that of a torn citizen of a no man’s land border where identity is expected to be as migratory as the worker is to the season.

Anzaldua, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Spinster/Aunt Lute Press, 1987.

 

 

 

 

Style in Conveying Message: A Side by Side Comparison of the Story of Joseph

 

The story of Joseph is presented in both the Old Testament and the Koran, and although they seek to relate the same story, they do so in different ways. The differences in the retelling of this story are not limited to different details, but include differences in style between the two texts. The Koran relates in a factual, preaching way while the Bible relates a picturesque novella type story which not only relates, but visually describes the events that take place. These two versions of the same story illustrate the different approach of the Muslim and Christian religions in giving testament. Through an examination of the different facts presented, as well as the absence of certain facts, the reader can infer the important messages and emotions each faith wishes to invoke.

Joseph, a religious text from the book of Genesis is also a very important part of the Islamic faith. In the Koran the story of Joseph is told within 7 pages, while in Genesis the story spreads out an additional 3 pages. Those additional pages allow the narrative to add detail and color that the Koran does not. The Koran relates in a factual way with large inserts of narrative from Joseph extolling the greatness of God and the need for monotheism. A blinding example can be found when Joseph, wrongly imprisoned, interprets the dreams of the baker and butler. Before giving his interpretation he preaches of God’s supremeness and singularity in being God:

Fellow-prisoners! Are sundry gods better than God, the One, the One who conquers all? Those you serve besides Him are nothing but names which you and your fathers have devised and for which God has revealed no sanction. Judgement rests only with God. He has commanded you to worship none but Him . . . (1053)

Meanwhile the New Testament gives more dialogue than narrative and allows Joseph to preach the Lord’s message without being preachy. The subtlety of the message is overshadowed by the richness of detail leaving inference of the lesson taught without directly stating it. The same scene begins quite differently in the Genesis version:

And Joseph came in unto them in the morning, and looked upon them, and, behold, they were sad. And he asked Pharaoh’s officers … saying, Wherefore look ye so sadly to day? And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretation belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.

Although I do not propose that the Bible is any less a religious and moral lesson it does not merely relate, but engrosses the reader in a way traditionally used in literary works. This lack of terseness and attention to picturesque detail indicates a desire to engage the reader’s interest in a story rather than merely instructing the reader on religious and ethical behavior. Both examples praise God, but while one is demanding obsequious to God the other is a reminder that the Lord is the only one who can grant sight.

The Koran also approaches the storytelling differently by using the first person narrative voice of God rather than that of Genesis’ third person omniscient. This directness aimed at the reader serves to give more weight to dialogue as the reader is being addressed by God himself. This is seen, for example, when Joseph is delivered into the hands of his Egyptian master. The Koran depicts this placement as:

Thus We established Joseph in the land, and taught him to interpret dreams. God has power over all things, though most men may not know it. And when he reached maturity We bestowed on him wisdom and knowledge. Thus We reward the righteous. (1052)

Meanwhile, the same event takes on a different tone in the Genesis version of the same event. Here, the third person omnipotent narrator explains why Joseph is placed in the house of Pharaoh and although in both versions it is due to the Lord’s blessings, the Koran directly tells the reader why and how, the Bible merely infers it was by blessing.

And the Lord was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian. And his master saw that the Lord was with him, and that the Lord made all he did to prosper in his hand. (63)

The Koran address in factual details the events of Joseph’s life, making him a just person while always keeping God’s greatness in perspective. The Genesis version differs in that it has Joseph suffering, despite his innocence, without explanation as to why. For example, in the Koran, Pharaoh’s wife attempts to seduce Joseph, who seeks strength in God as he is, like men, weak and prone to sin. When confronted with this accusation Joseph is cleared through investigative methods:

“If his shirt is torn from the front,” said one of her people, “she is speaking the truth and he is lying. If it is torn from behind, then he is speaking the truth and she is lying.” (1052)

It becomes clear here to Pharaoh that he is innocent; however, he is still sent to prison. The Koran; however, does not make the situation seem unjust or unmerciful as it was the innocent Joseph praying to be shielded from temptation that was the catalyst to his being put in prison.

 

“Lord,” said Joseph, “sooner would I go to prison than give in to their advances. Shield me from their cunning, or I shall yield to them and lapse into folly.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the Genesis version of the same story Joseph is thrown in jail having been accused because he is not believed. Joseph is seen in Genesis as being somewhat godlike in his resolve to not give in to his master’s wife, “how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?” (63) Although he does not succumb he is imprisoned.

And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spake unto him, saying, After this manner did they servant to me; that his wrath was kindled. And Joseph’s master took him, and put him into the prison, a place where the king’s prisoners were bound: and he was there in prison. (63)

This varying description of the same event casts both Joseph and God in different lights. The Koran does not grace Joseph with the unyielding godlike resolve as it does in the Genesis version. Rather, Joseph fears his own human frailties so much that he prays to be isolated in prison until he is more sure of his urges. Joseph in Genesis does not suffer from the same uncertainty. He resolves, and then stands by, his own strength and godliness in staving off temptation from his master’s wife. But, because the world is unfair, he is imprisoned nonetheless. This leads to the different perspectives of God’s role in this event. God allows the people in the Koran to reason and think righteously on their own. The Koran does not simplify the actions making the environment of Joseph seem unjust and slave-like. Genesis; however, has Joseph fall prey to the myopic view of the Egyptians and despite Joseph’s devotion and righteousness, shows only a small mercy in allowing Joseph to be the favorite of his jailor. But how we see the characters is not the only sight that comes into play, there are the visions that represent a gift from God.

In the beginning of both the Koran and Genesis Joseph has a vision of his brothers prostrated before him. In the Koran; however, Joseph is told by his father to keep this vision to himself in an effort to not incur his brothers’ jealousy. Joseph’s father, wise himself, sees the potential damage that Joseph’s grace could have within the family and uses judgment to manage his household. Alternately, in Genesis, not only does Joseph relate the story of his vision to his brothers but his father is the catalyst for the jealousy within the family. His bestowing a coat of many colors to his younger son is seen with envy by his older brothers, which put the wheels into motion. In this regard the Koran’s version shows that Joseph is the favored son of a wise man who he takes his learning from. Meanwhile, the Genesis version shows a wanton disregard for the brothers’ development in favor of Joseph’s. This blindness is even further developed when the explanation of why Joseph is in the field with his brothers is examined. The Koran depicts Joseph’s father’s awareness of his peril in the hands of his envious brothers when they ask if they could take Joseph with them into the field. The father, fearing for his safety, an ominous warning from God, ignores that warning after the brothers plead to take him along, “Why do you not trust us with Joseph? Sure we wish him well.” (1051) This differs from the Genesis version when it was the father who sent Joseph to look after his brothers’ tending of the flocks, “Go, I pray thee, see whether it be well with thy brethren, and well with the flocks; and bring me word again.” (62). Each version shows an ability, or inability, to see and understand. This sight is present in the Koran as all men are endowed with the ability to see that are open with God. This sight is not present, however, in the Genesis version as without divine intervention Joseph’s father does not know to protect and shield him from harm. Each father does allow Joseph to leave, but the Koran’s version has him do so as a lack of faith in his inner sight while the Genesis version has him do so as a lack of sight at all. By the end of each version however, sight again returns as an issue for Joseph’s father.

In the Koran, because of the level of grief over losing his son, Joseph’s father loses faith in seeing his son again, thus, losing faith in God’s plan. His consumption by grief turns his eyes white and keeps him blind physically as well as spiritually. Only after his faith is restored by the knowledge that Joseph, as was God’s plan, lives, can he once again see. His deep religious conviction allows this miracle at the mere scent of his son. In Genesis, it is God who must appear to convince the father to believe, “I will do down with thee into Egypt; and I will also surely bring thee up again: and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes.” (72) This divine intervention was necessary because, unlike in the Koran, the blindness suffered by Jacob was spiritual rather than physical. This goes to the underlying differences in the Bible and the Koran.

The Bible and Koran, both being religious texts, offer different lessons to people whose values would seem to be different. The Christian version of Joseph’s story shows the benefit, and blessings, that the follower can expect if they live by God’s laws. There is no struggle for Joseph to find inner divinity because this was graced on him by God. Meanwhile, the Koran shows the struggle of Joseph as he fights to not only adhere and learn to obey God’s law. The benefits reaped as a result of Joseph’s struggle were not gifts of God but tools to allow a continues “unblinding” of those around Joseph. Pharaoh’s wife when she takes responsibility, Joseph’s brothers when they learn to accept responsibility, and Joseph’s father when he learns to trust in God’s voice within him. The methodology and message may differ, but the story remains the same.

 

 

The Necessity of Forging a Hispanic Nation

First, what does that mean, to forge a Hispanic Nation. Well, there are two definitions of forge which could be applied to this topic. First, to forge “could” mean, to move forward in a slow and steady manner. Alternatively, forge “could” mean a sudden burst forward. Thus, in forging a Hispanic Nation, first it’s important to decide which forge is applicable.

If the idea of the sudden rush forward is your first instinct, reconsider. You cannot make substantial, permanent progress in a quick dash. Speed is not of issue as anything created too quickly can be broken apart just as quickly. Therefore, slow and steady.

Now what is a Hispanic Nation? As a Columbian, Dominican, Puerto Rican – do you “belong” in the Hispanic Nation? What about the Mexican, Salvadorian, Ecuadorian? The Hispanic Nation is ALL inclusive, it is not biased and elite. Whosoever desires to become, becomes. Simple. As in this nation, the United States, all who desire to become, become, such should be the Hispanic Nation. But why? What is the point than in creating this Utopia?

First we must ask, is the Hispanic truly a minority?

Throughout the history of the United States the Hispanics have been classified as a minority, but in actuality, they are not. Amassed, the many different peoples who make up the blanket term, Hispanic, the numbers nullify the claim that the Hispanic is a minority. Minority: A racial, religious, political, national, or other group regarded as different from the larger group of which it is part.* But look at the makeup of the United States, “12.5 percent of respondents to the 2000 Census identified themselves as Hispanic, up from 9.0 percent in 1990, making them one of the fastest growing demographic groups in the United States. The “Hispanic ethnicity” category on the Census includes Mexicans (7.3 percent of the total U.S. population in 2000), Puerto Ricans (1.2 percent), Cubans (0.4 percent) and a host of other Latin and South American ethnicities.”** This, apparently, does not make Hispanic a minority. You must keep in mind that the Census does not offer Hispanic as a race, but instead lumps it together as “other race” leaving a sketchy, at best, value to the census. Further, it must be noted that illegal immigrants would not have filled out the Census given the distrust and fear associated with releasing personal information to any official.

So now, what reasons could there possibly be to forge such a nation? First of all, as a Hispanic in today’s society it is all too apparent that the American stereotype looks upon the Hispanic as nothing more than a laborer or a criminal. How often are we assaulted with such derisive remarks as “that lazy Mexican – all he does is get drunk and steal jobs from real Americans” (hmmmm, first, if he’s so lazy how does he get the jobs, second, if he’s drunk how does he keep the job, and third, what “real” American wants to be stuck bussing tables, washing dishes or getting below union pay for working his ass off on a construction site.) Who hasn’t heard that “those Columbians and their damn drugs – that bunch of convicts” but hey, even IF the Columbian is selling just WHO IS BUYING – if you said “Real Americans” you’d be right. The stereotype of today’s Hispanic leads to a self fulfilling prophecy of lower educational standards. In a study done for a thesis I had written, it was proven that the Hispanic person is, by far, viewed as the least academically gifted among a group consisting of Hispanic, African American, White American, and Asian. Why is this? If the educators do not recognize the Hispanic student as academically viable as other students in their class, will they lavish the same attention upon them as their more “gifted” students.

[Future posting from Sociology paper's examination of self-fulfilling prophecy].

Is it any wonder that our young men and women turn to the streets to find unity, alliances, support, understanding and comfort – or numbing – once realizing their place in this society? How can we expect our young men and women to stay away from the streets and all of the perils which accompany it if they have no other place where they can be accepted? The loss of our young people, their addictions to drugs and violence, their loss of opportunity to achieve through education, their hopelessness and anger – this is the only “gift” which America offers the Hispanic youth.  But, it is only our acceptance to stay separate, shadowed both politically and economically, that truly doom our youth.  Silence within the Hispanic nation is choking our young people.

As the numbers rise of Hispanic people, fear among non-Hispanic, ethnical elitists has also rise. If they cannot out-gun than they must outwit – and thus far, we’ve allowed them to do that. We have lived in the shadow of a society which would keep us in darkness, as the light would shine upon our ability to control, change and empower our people. We have believed their lies, perhaps not about ourselves but our brothers. They have pitted one Hispanic society against the other in order to break our numbers. They have manufactured a belief in us that we are not all brothers and sisters – but separate portions of a MINORITY in this country. We do not embrace the Brazilian along with the Costa Rican, we do not reach our Puerto Rican hand out to our Mexican sister. We have bought into the lie that they are not like us; however, American power brokers know better. By their own hand they write us as Hispanic – as one people. In their own Census we are “other race” a faceless, nameless herd of cattle which they seek to keep penned up for their own use. They have fooled us in the past, but can do that no more.

How do “real Americans” view people of Hispanic origin. Do they offer the same opportunities, the same justice? The following statistics show American justice as a plague on the Hispanic people.

There are 283,000 Hispanics(1) in federal and state prisons and local jails, making up slightly over 15% of the inmate population.(2)

Nearly 1 in 3 (32%) persons held in federal prisons is Hispanic.(3)

As of 2001, 4% of Hispanic males in their twenties and early thirties were in prison or jail – as compared to 1.8% of white males.(4)

Hispanics are the fastest growing group being imprisoned, increasing from 10.9% of all State and Federal inmates in 1985 to 15.6% in 2001.(5)

From 1985 to 1995, the number of Hispanics in federal and state prisons rose by 219%, with an average annual increase of 12.3%.(6)

There is a fair amount of inconsistency in measuring Hispanic jail and prison populations, as they are frequently counted in conflicting or contradictory methods; e.g. Hispanics measured racially as black or white and not as a distinct group. It is commonly suspected that the actual number of Hispanics incarcerated is higher than what is accounted for by reporting agencies. Likelihood of Incarceration Hispanic men are almost four times as likely to go to prison at some point in their lives as non-Hispanic white males, but less likely than African American males.(7)

In some regions Hispanic male arrestees are the least likely to have their cases dismissed, followed by black males, Anglo males, and females of all ethnic groups.

Drugs

Despite equal rates of drug use proportionate to their populations, Hispanics are twice as likely as whites, and equally as likely as blacks, to be admitted to state prison for a drug offense.(11)

WWW.SENTENCINGPROJECT.ORG

Of all federal prisoners, Hispanics are half as likely as whites to have ever received treatment for substance abuse and also less likely than blacks (H19%, B25.7%, W39.5%). The numbers are also disproportionate for state prisoners (H33.8%, B36.6%, W51.8%).(12)

Ethnicity and the Criminal Justice System

Hispanic defendants in the federal court system are about one-third as likely as non-Hispanic defendants to be released before trial (22.7% vs. 63.1%).(13)

Despite a public perception that Hispanic immigrant communities are riddled with crime, studies show the involvement of Hispanic immigrants in crime is less than that of U.S. citizens.(14)

Hispanic federal inmates have a lower education level than both whites and blacks.(15)

Hispanic Women Prisoners

In New York, Hispanic women are 14% of the state’s prison population but constitute 44% of women sentenced to prison for drug offenses.(20)

Hispanics in the U.S.

A study from the National Survey of America’s Families found far reaching racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S.:

1. Hispanics are significantly more likely to be low-income (61% of Hispanics, 49% of blacks and 26% of whites).

2. Hispanics are less likely to receive child support (40% for Hispanics, 48% for blacks and 58% for whites).

3. Hispanics are most likely to report being in fair or poor health (33% for Hispanics, 23% for blacks and 20% for whites).

4. Hispanics are more likely to have uninsured children (29% of Hispanic children, 19% of white children and 16% of black children).

5. Hispanics experience rates of housing hardship that are twice as high as that for whites.

6. Across all income groups, Hispanic non-elderly experience food problems at a rate nearly twice that of white non-elderly. (21)

So what promise does the current standards and viewpoints espoused by white America offer one of the Hispanic culture? It holds none, thus, why should the Hispanic man and woman continue to survive on what society allows it? It is time that the diverse Hispanic population unite and show that they are no longer willing to be shackled by the antiquidated ideas of a society who has not fully evolved from the ignorant times of our forefathers. It is time to demand that we are recognized as the strong and intelligent leaders which we are rather than the servile Hispanic, outnumbered and outeducated, from the past.

Our voices have grown over the last 50 years and through the Hispanic media can continue to grow. As we see the uninvolved Midwest decide for us who becomes President, as we allow our brothers and sisters to be exploited through discriminatory hiring practices, discrimination in property ownership, discrimination in achieving credit and business loans, we must revolt. The time has come for the “good little Hispanic American” to go ON STRIKE. Take our dollars away from those who seek to exploit us and instead use them on Hispanic owned enterprises. Raise our voices in classrooms and refuse to accept the whitewashed history of this country and our place within it. Defend our brothers and sisters creating equitable legal assistance and educational opportunity. This, and only this, will forge our Hispanic Nation and give us back the pride which white America seeks to rob of us.
———————————————————————————————–
1 The term “Hispanics” refers to persons who may be of any race whose native tongue is a form of Spanish.
2 Beck, A.J., Karberg, J.C. & Harrison, P.M. “Prison and Jail Inmates
at Midyear 2001,” April 2002. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
3 Federal Bureau of Prisons Population Count; June 2003
4 Ibid.
5 Harrison, P.M. & Beck, A.J. “Prisoners in 2001,” July 2002.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
6 Mumola, C.J. & Beck, A.J. “Prisoners in 1996,” June 1997.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
7 Bonczar, T.P. & Beck, A.J. “Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or
Federal Prison,” March 1997. Table 9. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
8 Spohn, C., Gruhl, J., & Welch, S. “The Impact of the Ethnicity and Gender of Defendants on the Decision to Reject or Dismiss Felony Charges.” Criminology, February 1987, 25(1): 175-191.
11 Ditton, P.M. & Wilson, D.J. “Truth in Sentencing in State Prisons,” January 1999. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
12 Mumola, C.J. “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997,” January 1999. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
13 Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 1999, Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice, May 2000
14 Hagan, J. & Palloni, A. “Sociological Criminology and the Mythology of Hispanic Immigration and Crime.” Social Problems, November 1999, 46(4): 617-32.
15 Jackson, K. (1997). “Differences in the Background and Criminal Justice Characteristics of Young Black, White, and Hispanic Male Federal Prison Inmates.” Journal of Black Studies, 27, (4), 494-509.
20 Mauer, M., Potler, C. & Wolf, R. “Gender and Justice: Women, Drugs, and Sentencing Policy,” 1999.
21 Racial and Ethnic Disparities: Key Findings from the National Survey of America’s Families, 1997.

*Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition Copyright 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products
N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance
with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

**Census 2000 analyzed by the Social Science Data Analysis Network (SSDAN).

 

Growth Resulting from Imprisonment – the Story of Malcolm X

When forms become fixed, the spirit either weakly accepts its imprisonment or rebels. All revolutions consists of the “within” fighting against invasion from “without”… All great human movements are related to some great idea. 

– Rabindranath Tagore

            I selected the above quote as it epitomizes the life, the struggle and the ultimate victory that Malcolm X, later known as El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, achieved.  Being put into a prison is only one form of imprisonment.  Imprisonment can also occur within one’s own mind.  “There is one kind of prison where the man is behind bars, and everything that he desires is outside; and there is another kind where the things are behind bars, and the man is outside” (Sinclair 1906: 337).  When isolated from mainstream society, taught from birth that you have no reason to dream – that your future is as bleak as a prison cell, one can either give up hope allowing for a self-fulfilling prophecy, or fight back using whatever tools are available.  Malcolm X chose to fight back.  His struggle, and subsequent growth, is evident through the four major phases of evolution that he underwent.  Each phase ended with a form of self-enlightenment, and each phase found Malcolm X wearing a different name.  For purposes of coherence and brevity, I will use only the name Malcolm.  (At the pinnacle of his growth and enlightenment he cast off the X he adopted as a Black Muslim.)  Malcolm summed up the path he took when saying, “There is no better than adversity. Every defeat, every heartbreak, every loss, contains its own seed, its own lesson on how to improve your performance next time”(BrainyQuote 2001).  Malcolm did not reject his societal isolation, rather, he embraced that solitude to evolve and become the leader, and inspiration, he is even today.

            Malcolm Little was born May 19, 1925 in Omaha Nebraska.  His father, Earl Little, was a devout follower of the teachings of Marcus Garvey, thus, he was a continual source of harassment at the hands of the Klu Klux Klan.  Malcolm’s first brush with the violence perpetrated by the KKK occurred while his mother was still pregnant with him.  While his father, a minister, was out of town preaching the KKK came to his house.  Upon finding that Earl Little was not there, they harassed Malcolm’s mother and broke the windows to their home. 

            Violence, however, in Malcolm’s life was not limited to the violence of the Klan.  Earl Little was a harsh man who was prone to fits of violence.  Malcolm’s mother, Louise Little, although a more calming influence, was filled with self loathing, which at times she would transfer to the lighter complexioned Malcolm.  The family had moved several times, leaving homes when the threats of local racists became too much for them.  In 1931 Malcolm’s father was murdered, having been beat and left on the road to die.  His death was ruled as suicide despite obvious signs that it was murder.  Malcolm’s mother was left with seven children and no money to feed them.  Often the family was left hungry surviving on dandelion weeds cooked in hot water.  Although his mother struggled to keep her family together, the continual harassment of the social service workers who would frequent their home became too much of a strain on her, leaving her emotionally collapsed.  Louise Little was committed to a mental institution and the children were taken for placement.  Malcolm was placed with the Gohannas family; however, because he was an awkwardly tall youngster with fair skin, reddish hair and freckles he was frequently teased by the other children.  Having experienced his father’s death, his mother’s breakdown and separation from his siblings, he began striking out.  This violent venting caught up with him and he found himself headed for reform school.  On the way to reform school he was temporarily placed at the home of the Swerlins, who took a liking to Malcolm and kept him rather than sending him on his way.  Although he was treated with kindness, it was not as a young man but rather a mascot.  He was studious in school and felt a moderate degree of acceptance.  He had, through this time, used the self defense mechanism of accepting one’s place in society; however, that would soon change. 

            The catalyst to Malcolm’s first phase of evolution occurred in the schoolroom.  Malcolm, who as the president of his class and an academic achiever, expressed to his teacher, Mr. Ostrowski, his desire to become a lawyer.  Mistakenly believing he was doing young Malcolm a service, he explained, “you’ve got to be realistic about being a nigger.  A lawyer–that’s no realistic goal for a nigger.  You need to think of something you can be”(Haley 1973:, X 1973: 38).  Since Malcolm was accepted around town, intelligent and good with his hands, it was suggested he become a carpenter.  “People like you as a person–you’d get all kinds of work.”(Haley 1973: 1973: 38).  This was a blow which even as an adult Malcolm would relate as a tremendous moment in his life.  The indifference to his treatment in town was now gone and he became brutally aware that he was, and would always be, limited in potential.  This moment sucked from Malcolm the desire to play along.  “It was then that I began to change–inside.  I drew away from white people. . . . Where ‘nigger’ had slipped off my back before, wherever I heard it now, I stopped and looked at whoever said it.  And they looked surprised that I did”(Haley 1973: 38).  Shortly thereafter, following a series of letters, custody of Malcolm was given to his half sister Ella.  The week Malcolm graduated eighth grade he got on a bus and headed to Boston to live with Ella.  In his autobiography he states, “I’ve thought about that time a lot since then.  No physical move in my life has been more pivotal or profound in its repercussion”(Haley 1973: 39). 

            It is at this point that Malcolm exits the first phase, that of denial, and enters the second phase in his development.  Phase 2, the Detroit Red phase, begins when Malcolm arrives in Boston.  “What I thought I was seeing there in Roxbury were high-class, educated, important Negroes, living well, working in big jobs and positions”(Haley 1973: 42).  Malcolm; however, could not assimilate to the people on the Hill, and found himself seeking “Negroes who were being their natural selves and not putting on airs”(Haley 1973: 45).  While on a trip to town he met with his first real friend, a hustler called Shorty.  Shorty, older and more experienced, introduced Malcolm to a whole new world.  During this phase of self discovery Shorty was a powerful influence on Malcolm’s desire to create a new, hip, black identity.  His first conk, his first zoot suit, his first job, his first taste of marijuana, all occurred under Shorty’s tutelage.  Malcolm’s job at the Roseland Ballroom opened new doors of understanding for him.  It was also at this time when Malcolm began his relationship with one of the customers of Roseland, a white woman named Sophie.  His heavy identification with the music and dance, the status of his appearance as well as the blonde on his arm, the observance of various “side jobs” where money was exchanged for drugs, alcohol and other services, all excited Malcolm and he quickly adopted to these roles as a standard practice.  Malcolm left Roseland and took a job as a sandwich man on the “Yankee Clipper” which traveled from Boston to New York.  Once in New York Malcolm gravitated to Harlem where, “In one night, New York–Harlem–had just about narcotized me” (Haley 1973: 78).  In 1942 Malcolm, having been fired from the railroad, began working as a waiter at his favorite bar in Harlem.  Working at a Harlem hot spot had its advantages and Malcolm “listened raptly to customers who . . . would tell me inside things about the particular form of hustling that he pursued as a way of life. . . . numbers, pimping, con games of many kinds, peddling dope, and thievery of all sorts, including armed robbery”(Haley 1973: 86).  As Malcolm became more integrated in this seedier lifestyle, his financial needs began to change.  Soon he began his own hustling.  He began running numbers for a notorious Harlem figure, West Indian Archie, escorting prostitutes, selling drugs, committing armed robberies and running hustles on anyone who he could victimize.  His face was becoming well known to the local police and he had to be more cautious.  After a falling out with Archie he found himself on the run.  He headed back to Boston where he, Shorty, Sophie and Sophie’s sister began planning.  By this time Malcolm had begun using cocaine heavily and needed to find quick ways to make money to support his habits.  The group began casing out homes and burglarizing.  They would sell the items to a fence, and, for a time, were doing financially well.  That was until the police kicked in the door. 

            In February of 1946 Malcolm and Shorty were tried on fifteen counts of burglary; however, it appeared to them as though they were actually being tried for the crime of sleeping with white women.  “Nobody wanted to know anything about the robberies.  All they could see was that we had taken the white man’s woman”(Haley 1973: 153).  Malcolm states, “I reflected many times that the average burglary sentence for a first offender, as we all were, was bout two years.  But we weren’t going to get the average–not for our crime”(Haley 1973: 153).  The sentence was eight to ten years on each count, to run concurrently.  The women were sentenced to one to five years in a Women’s Reformatory.

            Malcolm’s imprisonment had now taken on a more tangible form.  Previously he was suffering the isolation of society and imprisonment into a lifestyle “allowed” by white society.  Now; however, he was completely caged.  Where before his mind was not free to pursue alternatives, he now was restricted in any type of freedom at all.  The bars which held Malcolm left a lifelong impression upon him, “Any person who claims to have deep feelings for other human beings should think a long, long time before he votes to have other men kept behind bars–caged.  I am not saying there shouldn’t be prisons, but there shouldn’t be bars.  Behind bars, a man never reforms.  He will never forget.  He never will get completely over the memory of the bars”(Haley 1973: 155).  During his time in prison he sought to escape using, at first, nutmeg bought from fellow inmates, but later harder drugs supplied by corrupt guards.  These narcotics did not, however, provide the escape that Malcolm sought.  In 1947 Malcolm caught his first glimpse of freedom, in the form of a self-educated fellow black convict named Bimbi.  Bimbi gained Malcolm’s respect through his intellect and ability to speak.  This respect resulted in Malcolm’s pursuing of correspondence courses and reading materials from the library.  It was at this time that Malcolm exits Phase 2, the angry, self destructive, self-fulfilling prophecy phase and entered into Phase 3 of his evolution, Malcolm X. 

            Freedom for Malcolm had become the fix he now sought.  He would read whatever he could get his hands on from the prison library.  At this time his brother Philbert began writing to Malcolm praising his new religion, the Nation of Islam.  Malcolm, although expanding his mind, was not ready to embrace religion.  He was still aching at his imprisonment and rejected the idea of spiritual growth focusing on his intellectual growth.  Following his brother Philbert’s attempt at conversion, Malcolm’s brother Reginald wrote to him.  In his letter he said the words Malcolm so desperately sought, “I’ll show you how to get out of prison”(Haley 1973: 158).  He followed Reginald’s instructions believing that there was a hustle brewing that would allow him to leave prison.  He was told not to eat any more pork nor smoke any more cigarettes.  After being transferred to Norfolk Massachusetts’s Prison Colony Malcolm’s brother Reginald arrived for a visit.  Malcolm was excited expecting to hear details about the con that Reginald had come up with but instead was asked, “if a man knew every imaginable thing that there is to know, who would he be?” which had Malcolm answer “he would have to be some kind of a god–”(Haley 1973: 161).  Reginald continues to explain, “There’s a man who knows everything. . . . God is a man, . . . His real name is Allah” (Haley 1973: 161).  This was Malcolm’s introduction to Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam.  Reginald ministered to the caged Malcolm and through his understandings of the religion of the black man, the oppressive, manipulations of the white man, and the personal self in which he was to be responsible for, Malcolm became enthused.  He read diligently of the teachings of the Nation of Islam and soon converted fully to Muslim.  His devotion to the “messenger of God,” Elijah Muhammad, was all consuming and he wrote daily to his minister.  Elijah Muhammad wrote back, and “it had an all but electrical” effect on Malcolm to see “the signature of the ‘Messenger of Allah’” Haley 1973: 172).  Malcolm states that “a new world had opened up to me through my efforts to document his teachings in books”(Haley 1973: 182).  For Malcolm, this was freedom.  Later in his life, during a speech, Malcolm explains: “”When a person places the proper value on freedom, there is nothing under the sun that he will not do to acquire that freedom. Whenever you hear a man saying he wants freedom, but in the next breath he is going to tell you what he won’t do to get it, or what he doesn’t believe in doing in order to get it, he doesn’t believe in freedom. A man who believes in freedom will do anything under the sun to acquire . . . or preserve his freedom” (BrainyQuote 2001).

            When Malcolm was released from prison in 1952 he went to Detroit to become a member of temple.  Malcolm was at last to meet his mentor, Elijah Muhammad.  The two would have discussions on how to recruit members for the temple.  Malcolm, having lived for a time on the streets, knew the language and was able to recruit from some of the rougher areas.  It was during this time that he adopted the X to his name to replace the “slave name” he had been given. 

            Malcolm’s appeal to the members of the temple had him exalted to a position of Minister for the Nation of Islam.  Devout in his belief in Elijah Muhammad, he would speak to throngs of people, in his name, relating the peace that could be found from the “white devil” within the Muslim faith.  Malcolm went on to minister at Temple Seven in Harlem.  He would actively speak and participate across the country; however, and became known along side of Elijah Muhammad as a spokesman for the Nation.  Malcolm married in 1958; however, that did not slow down his extensive traveling to speaking engagements.  It was late in 1958 when Malcolm brought the Nation of Islam a new notoriety when during a scuffle in Harlem a Muslim named Brother Johnson Hinton was assaulted by New York police.  When news reached Malcolm he decided to call upon his Muslim brothers to march to the police precinct house where Brother Johnson was held.  When confronted, the police were, “nervous and scared of the gathering crowd outside” (Haley 1973: 238).  The allowed Malcolm to see Brother Johnson, which resulted in the brother being brought to the hospital.  Afterward, the crowd dispersed; however, the event gave a voice that was until then unheard, the voice of the Nation of Islam.  Newspapers wrote and reporters sought interviews, but not of Elijah Muhammad, but of Malcolm X.  Envy began to rise within the Nation and Elijah Muhammad, apparently intimidated by the outspokenness of Malcolm, took notice.  Phase 3 unraveled when Malcolm became a target of this jealousy and was forced to see beyond the utopia that he thought he had found within the Nation.  The first event leading to this end was Malcolm’s awakening from the euphoria he had felt at becoming a leader, a mentor and a disciple of his “living god” Elijah Muhammad.  In 1963 Malcolm’s teachings strayed away from morality issues and began covering social issues.  He states, “the reason for this was that my faith had been shaken in a way that I can never fully describe.  For I had discovered Muslims had been betrayed by Elijah Muhammad himself” (Haley 1973: 301).  It was at that time that news had broke that Elijah Muhammad was being faced with paternity suits from two of his former secretaries.  Adultery was a serious breech in the Muslim doctrines which would normally result in the guilty party being “ousted in disgrace” therefore, Malcolm entered into a period of turmoil and confusion.  It was as though he had been told that God was dead.  In an effort to understand what was happening Malcolm visited the two secretaries.  He was told by the publicly disgraced women that Elijah Muhammad had told them he “was the best, the greatest minister he ever had, but that someday I would leave him, turn against him–so I was ‘dangerous.’  I learned . .  .that while he was praising me to my face, he was tearing me apart behind my back” (Haley 1973: 303).  The second event leading to Malcolm’s evolution occurred when President Kennedy was assassinated.  Although Muslim’s were instructed not to speak nor give interviews on the subject, Malcolm was quoted as saying, “the chickens coming home to roost” (Haley 1973: 307).  This resulted in headlines which embarrassed the Nation and caused Elijah Muhammad to “silence” Malcolm.  Although upset by this news, he understood that discipline was important to the Muslin way and he had disobeyed a direct order.  When he returned to New York; however, he was shocked to find that the position was that he had not submitted to his punishment, although he knew that he had.  The final blow came when he received a call from one of the Brothers in his mosque.  He was told that it was being said, “If you knew what the Minister did, you’d go out and kill him yourself” (Haley 1973: 309).  Malcolm knew, “any death-talk for me could have been approved of–if not actually initiated–by only one man” (Haley 1973: 309).  Phase 3, the building of esteem through empowerment, a sense of belonging and recognition of one’s peers was not over.  It was up to Malcolm now to find himself.  This has been a recurring theme throughout Malcolm’s life and through each of the previous phases he would have mentors, now he was alone.  In his own words, “Number one, we want to know what are we? How did we get to be what we are? Where did we come from? How did we come from there? Who did we leave behind, and what are they doing over there where we used to be? This is something that we have not been told. We have been brought over here and isolated” (Okantah 2001). 

            Malcolm entered his fourth and final phase without the support of an advisor or mentor and isolated from the very thing that had brought him his sense of self worth.  But although he was going through turmoil he had enough inner strength and faith to remain a devout Muslim.  He started Muslim Mosque, Inc. of Harlem in order to continue teaching the Muslim faith.  He was still; however, left feeling isolated and confused.  This is when he decided to make the pilgrimage, which is every Muslin’s obligation, to Mecca – the Hajj pilgrimage.  With the help of his half sister Ella, who Malcolm himself had converted to Muslim, he was able to finance the trip.  The pilgrimage was a true spiritual awakening for Malcolm.  For the first time he sees people of all races together, in unity, showing each other respect and kindness.  He was shown great acts of kindness and consideration from people of all races and stations in life.  This experience opened Malcolm’s eyes to what the true meaning of Muslim brotherhood meant.  He wrote a letter to his Muslim Mosque, Inc. offices and asked that the letter be copied to the press.  Knowing that his anti-white stance and defiant stance against integration was widely known, he sought to announce his new enlightenment.  I have quoted this letter, in part, below:

Never have I witness such sincere hospitality and the overwhelming spirit of true brotherhood as is practiced by people of all colors and races here in this Ancient Holy Land, the home of Abraham, Muhammad, and all the other prophets of the Holy Scriptures.  For the past week, I have been utterly speechless and spellbound by the graciousness I see displayed all around me by people of all colors.

*          *          *

There were tens of thousands of pilgrims, from all over the world.  They were of all colors, from blue-eyed blonds to black-skinned Africans.  But we were all participating in the same ritual, displaying a spirit of unity and brotherhood that my experiences in America had led me to believe never could exist between the white and non-white (Haley 1973: 347).

            He signed this letter with his Phase 4 name, El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz.  After the pilgrimage to Mecca, Malcolm traveled to Africa and the Middle East where he would sit with the leaders of nations discussing the American racial problems and the ways which those nations could assist and easing the racial tension and alleviating the black people of the oppression they lived under.  When he returned to the United States he started the Organization of Afro-American Unity (OAAU), a secular political group.  Although a changed man, he was met with mistrust and doubt.  This doubt was easily seen when in February of 1965 Malcolm’s house was firebombed.  Although he had repeatedly warned public officials, the threat to his life was not taken seriously enough.  Malcolm, in an omniscient moment, stated to his co-author, Alex Haley, the following, “Yes, I have cherished my ‘demagogue’ role.  I know that societies often have killed the people who have helped to change those societies.  And if I can die having brought any light, having exposed any meaningful truth that will help to destroy the racist cancer that is malignant in the body of America–then, all the credit is due to Allah.  Only the mistakes have been mine” (Haley 1973: 389).  The end of Malcolm’s 4^th and final phase of evolution occurred on February 21, 1965 while giving a speech in the Audubon Ballroom in the Harlem he had so loved as bullets ripped through his chest in front of an audience of over two hundred people, as well as his wife and four children. 

            Malcolm’s fourth phase of development, his knowledge not only of “self”, but self in relation to the world around it.  He developed the belief that there is good to be found in all mankind regardless of race; the beauty that can be found by looking unbiased at your fellow human being.  He found that he was part of an interdependent world, he did not have to function as only Malcolm a man, but as part of something bigger than himself.  He accepted responsibility for his mistakes and sought to atone for them.  The only thing that could stop Malcolm from growth was death, but even in death, he still speaks of the will of the human being in overcoming oppression, isolation, imprisonment and hate.  In the story of Malcolm’s life we see the worst in man transcend all obstacles to become the best in man.  He faced insurmountable odds and overcame them to become a testament to the strength within us that waits only to be called upon. 

References

BrainyQuote. 2001. BrainyMedia.com. Retrieved April 5, 2005 <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/malcolmx120125.html>.

Haley, Alex, and Malcolm X. 1973. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York: Ballentine Books.

Okantah, Mwatabu. 2001. “Finding Malcolm X” TimBookTu.. Retrieved April 4, 2005 <http://www.timbooktu.com/okantah/findmalc.htm>.

Sinclair, Upton. 1906. The Jungle. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.

An Examination of Clytaemnestra as a Tragic Victim

Clytaemnestra, although vilified in the Oresteia, was in fact a moral extractor of vendetta justice who fell victim to the patriarchal Athenian society. What constitutes justice is a question that could not be given justice in one brief paper; therefore, for purposes of this paper we will use only two ideas of justice: vendetta justice and legal justice. Vendetta justice defies boundaries limiting actions and allows the extractor to make their own definition. This would encompass such theory as “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Meanwhile, legal justice is regulated by a governing body who makes the determination as to whether there has been an offense requiring justice, and what constitutes fair and equitable justice. The Oresteia offers two different types of justice, vendetta, as well as trial justice; however, at the time that Clytaemnestra committed the act of murder, legal justice was not being offered to her. It is for this reason that this papers seeks to prove that Clytaemnestra is an extractor of vendetta justice, which is the only justice which she had available to her. An examination of the character of Clytaemnestra by analyzing the dialogue of Agamemnon shows that the actions of Clytaemnestra were not only justified for the zeitgeist of the Mycenae age, but were also admirable given a woman’s position in society. This strength of character is an important and undervalued commodity in a play which offered a strong, determined woman the spotlight to shine as intelligent and capable. Were Clytaemnestra’s actions villainous? Certainly one might argue that this is true in today’s culture; however, it does not necessarily follow that the actions of Clytaemnestra were either vile or wicked in the eyes of the Athenian culture. The Furies argue that a violation of the blood tie was more heinous a crime that the oath tie shared by Clytaemnestra and Agamemnon; however, when Orestes’ later slays his mother he is also in violation of the oath tie as the Athenian premise is that only the father is the true parent. Why then is Clytaemnestra vilified while Orestes is considered a hero garnering sympathy and support from the audience? In determining whether Clytaemnestra was in fact victim rather than villain it is important to examine two main points. The first point is the motive behind the murder of Agamemnon and the second being the quality of Clytaemnestra’s character. These points are very crucial, for they either indict or acquit Clytaemnestra, thus making her victim or villain. Ironically, the dialogue in Oresteia provides the tool which will vindicate Clytaemnestra’s act of retaliation.

Through Clytaemestra’s use of visualization and double entendre, as we will examine below, we can begin to see Clytaemnestra’s motives for the murder of Agamemnon and Cassandra. Additionally, by examining her interaction with other characters, such as in the dialogue between Clytaemnestra and the Chorus in Agamemnon, we are given the opportunity to get a glimpse into her character. One such instance occurs after the lighting of the torches, which was a signal put in place by Clytaemnestra to signify the downfall of Troy. After this occurs Clytaemnestra offers sacrifice. When asked why she offers sacrifice she answers:

As it was said of old, may the dawn child be born/ To be an angel of blessing from the kindly night/ You shall know joy beyond all you ever hoped to hear/ The men of Argos have taken Priam’s citadel.

 

Iphigeneia, the daughter of Clytaemnestra and Agamemnon, was sacrificed by Agamemnon in order to appease the gods and enable him to go on to conquer Troy. Iphigeneia is represented here as the “dawn child” because the “dawn” represents light, which in this culture is good and pure, and “child” is representative of the fact that she is Clyaemnestra’s child. The “taking of Priam’s citadel” is the first component in Clytaemnestra’s plan for revenge for the murder of their daughter. The end of the battle signifies the return of Agamemnon; therefore, the plan for revenge could begin. The two events are inextricably tied together for it is Agamemnon’s death that will bring Clytaemnestra closure for her child’s murder. This is the reason why knowing that Troy has ben taken fills Clytaemnestra with “joy” for it signifies the impending return of Agamemnon. The much-awaited moment of retribution gives Clytaemnestra “joy beyond all you ever hoped to hear.” Clytaemnestra is speaking to a very suspicious Chorus. Clytaemnestra, mindful that the Chorus is suspicious of her, would give reasons for her excessive joy at the return of the husband who she has been unfaithful to.

But what, among all other things, does Clytaemnestra say that proves her motive to be that of vengeance for the murder of Iphigeneia? At the moment of highest drama, when faced with the accusing chorus following the murder of Agamemnon, Clytaemnestra not only states her reason but also takes the chorus to task for not having taken action against Agamemnon’s evil deed leaving her the burden of exacting justice for that death.

. . . he slaughtered like a victim his own child, my pain/ grown into love, to charm away the winds of Thrace/ Were you not bound to hunt him then clear of this soil/ for the guilt stained upon him? Yet you hear what I/ have done, and lo, you are a stern judge.

 

It is worth note that although Clytaemnestra has taken to the sword in revenge, she relates with tender imagery her vision of Agamemnon and Iphigeneia meeting again.

Not for you to speak of such tendance/ Through us he fell/ By us he died; we shall bury./ There will be no tears in this house for him/ It must be Iphideneia/ his child, who else/ shall greet her father by the whirling stream; and the ferry of tears/ to close him in her arms and kiss him.

 

This small display of affection not only embraces Iphigeneia, but also extends to Agamemnon. Does she still harbor feelings of affection for this man? Through connecting the beloved Iphigeneia with Agamemnon in an embrace Clytaemnestra is adding a dimension of love to both. If Agamemnon were so hated by Clytaemnestra would she be able to envision such a tender moment at all? The hatred would more commonly have had Clytaemnestra speaking of the hell fires and suffering waiting for Agamemnon. This leads to the question of whether revenge for the sacrifice of Iphigeneia was all that drove Clytaemnestra?

The incidents of jealous dialogue that follow present the likelihood that Clytaemnestra was further fueled to desperation by a feeling of desertion by Agamemnon. Although lines 859 through 866 (in my text) are interpreted to be a foretelling of the capturing of Agamemnon in a web, they also indicate that Clytaemnestra was aware of Agamemnon’s actions in Troy.

… What I tell you now/ I learned not from another; this is my own sad life/ all the long years this man was gone at Ilium./ It is evil and a thing of terror when a wife/ sits in the house forlorn with no man by, and hears/ rumors that like a fever die and break again,/ and men come in with news of fear, and on their heels/ another messenger, with worse news to cry aloud/ here in this house . . .

 

Because she was well informed of the actions of Agamemnon during his absence, whe would also have been aware of the drama involving Criseius and Briseius, which was the catalyst to Achilles’ refusal to fight. This close monitoring and eager announcement of this knowledge shows how Agamemnon’s activities were of paramount importance to Clytaemnestra. An additional indication of Clytaemnestra’s anger at Agamemnon’s infidelity is shown when she addresses the chorus following the death of Agamemnon:

. . . while he,/ this other, if fallen, stained with this woman you behold,/ plaything of all the golden girls at Ilium;/ and here lies she, the captive of his spear, who say/ wonders, who shared his bed, the wise in revelations/ and loving mistress, who yet know the feel as well/ of the men’s rowing benches.

 

The timing of this reference to the “golden girls of Ilium” may explain the murder of the innocent Cassandra. Jealousy as a motive for the murder of Cassandra may be considered enough; however, it must not be forgotten how important symbolism is.

After carefully planning her revenge upon Agamemnon, Clytaemnestra went to great pains to proclaim her fidelity and to show respect for her husband in order to present to Agamemnon and the Chorus that she was a loving and beloved wife. This leads to the conclusion that she not only wanted revenge upon her husband, but also wanted this revenge to come by what he believes to be the loving hand of his wife. If she were to present herself in any other way but faithful he would not have turned his back on her so quickly. Additionally, Clytaemnestra did not want her act of murder to be associated with infidelity. The action was to be solely associated with revenge for Iphigeneia. However, at the moment of her victory Agamemnon speaks tender words to Cassandra, his prize of Troy. This exalts Cassandra while denigrating Clytaemnestra. Symbolically, it is a blow most harshly thrust upon Clytaemnestra. He had left with Iphigeneia, the treasure of Clytaemnestra, and returned with Cassandra, “flower exquisite from all my many treasures.” With Iphigeneia having been cast to the sacrificial altar and Clytaemnestra being cast aside, allowing Cassandra to live would have been a painful and cruel reminder of all that was lost for the small tokens that were gained. But do these mere examples truly portray Clytaemnestra as being sensitive?

What indication do we have that Aeschylus wished to present Clytaemnestra as a cold-hearted murderess? By observing Clytaemnestra’s dialogue when the subject of Agamemnon’s murder is not prevalent we see another person who does not display savagery but empathy and concern. The dialogue that occurs between lines 326 through 342 (my version) demonstrates redeemable qualities possessed by Clytaemnestra:

Trojans are stooping now to gather in their arms/ their dead, husbands and brothers; children lean to clasp/ the aged who begot them, crying upon the death/ of those most dear, from lips that never will be free./ The Achaeans have their midnight work after the fighting/ that sets them down to feed on all the city has,/ ravenous, headlong, by no rank and file assigned,/And if they reverence the gods who hold the city/ and all the holy temples of the captured land/ they, the despoilers, might not be despoiled in turn./ Let not their passion overwhelm them; let no lust/ seize on these men to violate what they must not do.

 

Here we are offered the opportunity to see Clytaemnestra as a woman of integrity. It is Clytaemnestra’s empathy for the Trojan people which has her offering prophecy for all of the “despoilers.” The imagery of the beaten Trojan people looks not at the spoils but at the people and their gods. If the battle were lost by Agamemnon, would not the picture be the same? Clytaemnestra may have had ulterior motives for making this speech, as it may arguably have been a warning to Agamemnon that the swift return to Argos, sans certain flowering spoils, would have delayed the date of execution.

Another instance of a clear show of morality occurs when Clytaemnestra, although feeling justified in her reaction and angry at the chorus for their condemnation of her, redeems herself when Aegisthus appears and begins to threaten the men of the chorus. In lines 1654 through 1661 (my version) she quells the rising tempers and gives way to what her true disposition is:

No, my dearest, dearest of all men, we have done enough. No more/ violence. Here is a monstrous harvest and a bitter reaping time./ There is pain enough already. Let us not be bloody now./ Honored gentlemen of Argos, to your homes no and give way/ to the stress of fate and season. We could not do otherwise/ than we did. If this is the end of suffering, we can be content/ broken as we are by the brute heel of angry destiny./ Thus a woman speaks among you. Shall men deign to understand?

 “If this is the end of suffering we can be content.” These are not words that long for war nor seek bloodletting, but those of one resigned to the fact that fate had played its hand and she had matched it card for card. This is indicative of the fact that Clytaemnestra believes that what she has done is necessary to end the history of bloodshed in Agamemnon’s House. By her addition of the words, “If this” add an interesting dynamic to this sentence for it can be a foretelling of events yet to come, and her uncertainty that she has ended the bloodshed. It is not long after these words are spoken that Orestes returns to add another does of suffering into the House of Agamemnon.

Orestes words make the final plea as they take on new significance when applied to Clytaemnestra. From the mouth of Orestes, as he pleads his innocence to Athena, we hear words that would, had they been spoken for Clytaemnestra, been equally truthful but tragically ignored. When speaking to Athena in the Eumenides, Orestes states:

The stain of blood dulls now and fades upon my hand.. . . and the list were long if I were to tell of/ all I met who were not hurt by being with me./ Time in his aging overtakes all things alike.

 Through Orestes’ claim that he is not of any danger to society, he is given justice – but this justice should have been applied to Clytaemnestra. Clytaemnestra had shown neither disregard for life nor viciousness toward others but, as many of the men who went before her, measured out justice.

 

The Disruption of the Puerto Rican Culture Due to Americanization

            In assessing the effects of the “Americanization” of the island of Puerto Rico, it is important to ascertain whether industrial progress is always beneficial to the people’s to which it is brought.  Through the American perception of the ideal, one would believe that suburbanization and industrialization is akin to progress and success; however, Puerto Rico proves this to be a fallacy.  The people of Puerto Rico, hard working individuals with a strong work and family ethic became so immersed in “Americanization” that no price was too big to pay to achieve that “ideal.”  Such prices included the dissolving of the patriarchal society, the sterilization of one-third of the country’s women of child bearing years, and the loss of pride in one’s ability to provide not only for himself but for his family.  Now, this society is rapidly becoming matriarchal with 20 percent of the males unemployed and living off of American handouts.  But how did this happen?  

            The terminology “for your own good” has never taken on more bitter irony than in the case of the Americanization of Puerto Rico.  This island, as a result of American intervention, has become a welfare society.  The industrialization of what was once an agricultural society has robbed the land of its ability to produce while thrusting the rural peasant into an environment which he is ill equipped to survive in.  The establishment in 1954 of Operation Bootstrap lured many large corporations to this small commonwealth through the tax incentive programs offered by then Governor Muniz Marin; however, once these incentives ceased to exist, the corporations folded up their operations and left the now dependant Puerto Rican’s to fend for themselves.  

              The Chinese Proverb: “Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he’ll eat forever.” would, if it had been used, provided the assistance needed to raise Puerto Rico’s standard of living to a level which would have made for an acceptable position above the poverty level for the survival of Puerto Rico’s culture and people.  Puerto Rico, once a tri-crop society where the gross national product was sugar cane, coffee and tobacco, survived but did not thrive.  During 1900-1930, the U.S. government promoted sugarcane as a single crop, undermining coffee and tobacco as crops; this impoverished many small farmers and established Puerto Rico’s dependency upon the U.S. economy. This was not the values which more “civilized” societies used to measure the worth of the cultural makeup of a nation.  Thus, “for their own good” America plotted a new course for this island to take.  Rather than assisting with programs which would benefit the natives, as well as raise their standard of living, America assessed the worth that Puerto Rico could provide to the capitalist and to the now governing United States.  Rather than appreciate the distinct culture and values already present in the Puerto Rican society, the United States attempted to instill the Anglo-American culture into the heart of this island.  

            While the petrochemical and pharmaceutical companies polluted the lands making them unfit for agricultural development, they did not prepare the migrant workers to take their place within the factories which had displaced them from their livelihood.  Although women were able to find employment for a while, the men, who were once the head of household, were unable to work.  This emasculation of the family structure resulted in loss of machismo in a culture previously based on such feelings.  This loss of pride by the males in this culture made the transformation to a welfare economy a much smoother one.  Without the prospect of employment, and subject to dependence upon the women of the household, the now demoralized male more easily accepted public assistance.

            A further emasculation of the once male dominated society occurred as a result of the mass sterilization and birth control which the uneducated female population agreed to.  The United States, feeling that these inferior people were reproducing unnecessarily, began la operacion, developed to curb the population growth of the working females of child bearing years, for both economic and biased reasons, the male of the household was no longer la padre, but rather a burden to his family.  In the machismo society, the bringing forth of children was an affirmation of manhood, thus, when the males were not longer able to add to their families they were “emasculated” once again.  Furthermore, as women now earned the family incomes, male children were no longer prized as they had been in the past.  This denigration of the male, who traditionally were the leaders in their communities as well as families, forever altered the course of Puerto Rican culture.

            Lastly, rather than America entering into a redevelopment plan which was designed to enhance this agricultural, male dominated society, America forged an “Americanization” plan to force the Anglo-American ideal of development.  Only through the reshaping and restructuring of the Puerto Rican culture could the United States imagine that this “backward” society would hope to become successful.  As long as that success was measured by the American standard.  In order to achieve this success, America began a propaganda campaign to deconstruct the Puerto Rican culture, beginning with the English language classes and “Dick and Jane” readers which promoted the two parent – two child suburban lifestyle which America believed was an indicator of success.  The rape of the soil, the emasculation of the male, the domination of the government and the dependence upon public assistance all worked in tangent to destroy a culture which was the “heart” of Puerto Rico.  What America left behind was the “ghost” of America. 

 

Compare/Contrast Greek and Hebrew Culture Heroes in Literature

QUESTION:  Compare/contrast the Greek culture hero revealed in the Iliad and the Odyssey and the Hebrew culture hero developed in the Old Testament readings in our text.  Why in human nature is there room for both manifestations?

ANSWER:  While the Greek culture hero was living and dying by the sword, the Hebrew culture heroes rod and staff were comforting him.  The differences in the Greek and Hebrew culture heroes are temperament, values and hubris.  The heroes of the Iliad display valor and physical prowess, while in the Odyssey the fine art of trickery joins with prowess to form the ideal man.  In the Hebrew culture; however, we see the hero as being patient, wise, forbearing and virtuous.  

The Iliad offered two heroes, Achilles and Hector.  Achilles was a young soldier whose victories on the battlefield earned him respect, honors and a short battle scarred life.  The main components of Achilles temperament were anger, as when Brisies was led away from him by Agamemnons men, hubris, shown when he decided he would not fight for Agamemnon having suffered indignities at Agamemnons command, and, of course, fighting prowess, for which he was most noted.  Single handedly Achilles was able to bring down Hector and thus, the walls of Troy.  

Achilles was not the only hero in the Iliad.  Hector, although slightly higher in values, suffered from the same mores of that time.  Battling for prides sake, even when he knew it was time to end the bloodshed, was indicative of the kill or be killed mentality of the soldier.  In the poignant moments between Hector and Andromeche Hector, knowing that he will die and she will suffer much indignity, gives his fathers pride as a reason to continue to battle.

Odysseus of the Odyssey was a different, although not predominantly different, hero.  Here is a man of strength who gets through his epic by demonstrating craftiness.  He rushes from one drama to another with piqued curiosity leading he and his men into one dilemma after another.  When these little mini-dramas occur, it is through trickery that he often finds the egress.  His values are apparent in the stories that he tells, and their obvious exaggeration, and in his willingness to endure the delays in his journey home for the tokens that he would obtain.  He shows the usual viciousness in the way that he handles the men, and more notably the women, when he arrives home at last.

In the New Testament we have a plethora of heroes from which to choose.  For purposes of uniformity the three central heroes that our text presents are Noah, Joseph and Job.  Three men who show unusual degrees of patience and devotion.  

Noah, a true worshipper of the Lord, remained righteous while all around him gave into the temptations of sin.  When commanded that he should build the ark, although held up for ridicule for doing such in the dessert, he unquestionably obeyed.  For forty days and forty nights (or 150 days) he weathered the storm which took all of mankind from the earth.  In following the commands of the Lord, Noah gave humanity a second chance.

Joseph was sold into slavery by his jealous brothers.  While being held he had to suffer under the yoke of indignity.  Imprisoned on false charges by a WOMAN, Joseph used his God given gift of dream interpretation in order to gain favor in Pharaohs house through the King’s servant.  Afterward, interpreting an extremely troublesome dream, which happened to save all of Israel, he became all powerful.  It was then that he was given the opportunity to forgive his brothers having tested their character.

Job, the great sufferer, what a faithful and loving servant of God.  The Lord had faith in Job, knowing that Job would never turn his back on Him.  Much sorrow befell the house of Job and all of his friends believed it to be caused by the sins of Job.  Whatever plight was visited upon Job, Job stayed faithful in the Lord.  The Lord returned to Job all that he lost for Job proved himself a righteous man.

These are the different men of the Greek and Hebrew culture; valuing different things and living by different standards; nonetheless, there is room enough for both type of hero.  It is the Greek hero who goes out into the world creating paths and fighting causes.  This world, at times, needs defenders who, by strength or wit, can make the difficult happen.  But without men such as those of the Hebrew culture we would soon see the Greek going from hero to barbarian.  The honest, loving, faithful heroes of the Hebrew culture teach through example what goodness and kindness reaps.  Lives must live in a state of balance where, like the Epicureans believed, too much or too little is wrong.  A world of warriors or a world of shepherds create a society that is either void of peace or void of the venturer who brings new worlds, such as this country, into the hands of its people.

 

 Dualism and the Double in Dostoevskys Crime and Punishment

 Crime and Punishment was the second of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s most important, mature fictional works. It was first published in the conservative journal The Russian Messenger, appearing in twelve monthly installments in 1866. Dostoevsky left three full notebooks of materials pertinent to Crime and Punishment. These have been published under the title The Notebooks for Crime and Punishment, edited and translated by Edward Wasiolek. Dostoevsky began work on this novel in the summer of 1865. He originally planned to title it The Drunkards, but in the final version, the theme of drunkenness as a social problem, represented by the Marmeladov family, had shrunk to a minor role. In September of 1865 Dostoevsky wrote a letter to M. N. Katkov, the editor of The Russian Messenger, attempting to persuade Katkov to accept the novel and to publish it in his journal. To show Katkov that the new novel was suitable for publication in a conservative journal, Dostoevsky outlined its content and idea as follows: The idea of the novel cannot, as far as I can see, contradict the tenor of your journal; in fact, the very opposite is true. The novel is a psycho- logical account of a crime. A young man of middle-class origin who is living in dire need is expelled from the university. From superficial and weak thinking, having been influenced by certain “unfinished” ideas in the air, he decides to get himself out of a difficult situation quickly by killing an old woman, a usurer and widow of a government servant. The old woman is crazy, deaf, sick, greedy, and evil. She charges scandalous rates of interest, devours the well-being of others, and, having reduced her younger sister to the state of a servant, oppresses her with work. She is good for nothing. “Why does she live?” “Is she useful to anyone at all?” These and other questions carry the young man’s mind astray. He decides to kill and rob her so as to make his mother, who is living in the provinces, happy; to save his sister from the libidinous importunities of the head of the estate where she is serving as a lady’s companion; and then to finish his studies, go abroad and be for the rest of his life honest, firm, and unflinching in fulfilling his humanitarian duty toward mankind. This would, according to him, “make up for the crime,” if one can call this act a crime, which is committed against an old, deaf, crazy, evil, sick woman, who does not know why she is living and who would perhaps die in a month anyway. Despite the fact that such crimes are usually done with great difficulty because criminals always leave rather obvious clues and leave much to chance, which almost always betrays them, he is able to commit his crime, completely by chance, quickly and successfully. After this, a month passes before events come to a definite climax. There is not, nor can there be, any suspicion of him. After the act the psycho- logical process of the crime unfolds. Questions which he cannot resolve well up in the murderer; feelings he had not foreseen or suspected torment his heart. God’s truth and earthly law take their toll, and he feels forced at last to give himself up. He is forced even if it means dying in prison, so that he may once again be part of the people. The feeling of separation and isolation from mankind, nature, and the law of truth take their toll. The criminal decides to accept suffering so as to redeem his deed. But it is difficult for me to explain in full my thinking.

Katkov accepted Crime and Punishment for publication in his journal.

It was well received by the public and restored Dostoevsky to the position of a leading Russian writer, despite a largely unfavorable reaction from the liberal press. The reason for its long standing appeal is that rather than this being a “whodunit” Crime and Punishment is more like a “whydunnit”. Through its exploration of the mind of a murderer, the reader is drawn to the dualism and use of doubles (doppelgangers) that Dostoevsky so expertly calls upon to elicit sympathy and understanding for the murderer, Raskolnikov.

Crime and Punishment is a novel exploring the dualism of the human mind by exploring the bipolarization of conscience and reason through the actions of its protagonist, Rodia Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov, an expelled university student, feels compelled to commit murder. He rationalizes that he is superior and therefore exempt from traditional laws. In this distorted belief Raskolnikov clearly embraces the theory of the nihilist. The Columbia Encyclopedia defines Nihilism as: 

“the theory of revolution popular among Russian extremists until the fall of the czarist government (1917); the theory was given its name by Ivan Turgenev in his novel Fathers and Sons (1861). Nihilism stressed the need to destroy existing economic and social institutions, whatever the projected nature of the better order for which the destruction was to prepare. Nihilists were not without constructive programs, but agreement on these was not essential to the immediate objective, destruction. Direct action, such as assassination and arson, was characteristic. Such acts were not necessarily directed by any central authority. Small groups and even individuals were encouraged to plan and execute terroristic acts independently. The assassination of Czar Alexander II was one result of such terrorist activities. The constructive programs published by nihilists include the establishing of a parliamentary government; the programs were on the whole moderate in comparison with the revolutionary measures of 1917. Nihilism was too diffuse and negative to persist as a movement and gradually gave way to other philosophies of revolt; it remained, however, an element in later Russian thought.”

Although Raskolnikov adopts nihilism as an aspect of his belief system, he later finds himself tormented by his conscience, which does not recognize Raskolnikov’s feelings of superiority. Websters New World Dictionary defines conscience as: intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good; while the definition of reason is: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially: something that supports a conclusion or explains a fact. Conscience and reason differ because the actions of the individual are based on two separate standards. Conscience is dependent upon a moral standard while reason is dependent upon a logical defense. Raskolnikov acted with flawed reason in a situation that clearly called for conscience. Dostoevsky further demonstrates the issue of duality through the use of Raskolnikov’s doubles or doppelgangers, mainly Sonia Semenovna and Arcadius Ivanovitch Svidrigaylov. Sonia and Svidrigaylov represent the two opposing forces in Raskolnikov’s nature. By observing Sonia’s refusal to abandon her morals and Svidrigaylov’s continual perpetuation of immorality, the reader sees that one’s emotion is victor over reason.These techniques employed by Dostoevsky, the use of the double and dualism, brought to light the sociological and psychological factors underpinning the protagonist’s descent into immorality. By using these devices Dostoevsky gives the reader reason to have sympathy for a character who would otherwise be an unredeemable villain. Crime and Punishment employed both methods in order for the character of Raskolnikov to receive redemption and become a hero rather than a vile murderer. The first method, that of dualism, will be explored first. To properly explain dualism in Crime and Punishment it is necessary to understand what dualism encompasses. Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia defines dualism as:

Dualism, in philosophy, the theory that the universe is explicable only as a whole composed of two distinct and mutually irreducible elements. In Platonic philosophy the ultimate dualism is between “being” and “nonbeing”-that is, between ideas and matter. In the 17th century, dualism took the form of belief in two fundamental substances: mind and matter. French philosopher René Descartes, whose interpretation of the universe exemplifies this belief, was the first to emphasize the irreconcilable difference between thinking substance (mind) and extended substance (matter). The difficulty created by this view was to explain how mind and matter interact, as they apparently do in human experience. This perplexity caused some Cartesians to deny entirely any interaction between the two. They asserted that mind and matter are inherently incapable of affecting each other, and that any reciprocal action between the two is caused by God, who, on the occasion of a change in one, produces a corresponding change in the other.

In the 20th century, reaction against the monistic aspects of the philosophy of idealism has to some degree revived dualism. One of the most interesting defenses of dualism is that of Anglo-American psychologist William McDougall, who divided the universe into spirit and matter and maintained that good evidence, both psychological and biological, indicates the spiritual basis of physiological processes. French philosopher Henri Bergson in his great philosophic work Matter and Memory likewise took a dualistic position, defining matter as what we perceive with our senses and possessing in itself the qualities that we perceive in it, such as color and resistance. Mind, on the other hand, reveals itself as memory, the faculty of storing up the past and utilizing it for modifying our present actions, which otherwise would be merely mechanical. Dualism in ethics describes the recognition of the independent and opposing principles of good and evil. This dualism is exemplified in Zoroastrianism and in the Manichaean religion.

A combination of the Bergson and ethical approaches to dualism are apparent in Crime and Punishment. The use of dualism is a prevalent consideration to the critical approach to Dostoevsky. George Gibian writes:The underlying antithesis of Crime and Punishment, the conflict between the side of reason, selfishness, and pride, and that of acceptance of suffering, closeness to life-sustaining Earth, and love, sounds insipid and platitudinous when stated in such general fashion as we have done here. Dostoevsky, however, does not present it in the form of abstract statement alone. He conveys it with superb dialectical skill, and when we do find direct statements in the novel, they are intentionally made so inadequate as to make us realize all the more clearly their disappointing irrelevancy and to lead us to seek a richer representation in other modes of discourse. (970-976).

Further critical appraisals of Crime and Punishment point to the true reason for its writing as a piece of propaganda meant to cast aspersions on the practice of nihilists.

Nihilism is perhaps the most important philosophical issue raised in the novel. It can be studied in connection with Raskolnikov and his crime, but also in connection with Svidragailov, Lebezyatnikov and Luzhin. The nihilists believed that ethics should be based on scientific claims and that man could create a perfect society (a rational utopia) if he lived according to the principle of enlightened self-interest. The distortion of this notion is seen in Raskolnikov’s justification of murder, Luzhin’s self-centered motives as Dunia’s benefactor, and Lebezyatnikov’s vulgarization of the idea of progress. By rejecting moral absolutes and Christian belief, these nihilists were able to argue that values are relative and that self-interest (what they called “rational egoism”) is the means to the end of perfecting social problems. With this program they explained all irrational behaviors and psychological disorders– and especially crime–as the result of social forces and the environment; further, their optimistic belief that ethics should be based on scientific principles led them to reject traditional religious values. (Glicksberg 75-79).

Much like the core value of the nihilist Dostoyevsky’s conflicted hero, the student Raskolnikov, is driven to test the limits of his freedom: If he is truly free, then “everything is permitted” and he should be able to step beyond the accepted limits of right and wrong. Pondering ideas current in his time, he convinces himself that true, rational morality means doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. On that basis he tries to justify intellectually his murder of an old pawnbroker who accumulated money by exploiting the misfortunes of others. But instead of committing murder coolly and using the pawnbroker’s money to do good, Raskolnikov is haunted by what he has done. He eventually confesses his crime, influenced by the selfless love of a prostitute, Sonia; by the psychological probings of Porfiry, the detective investigating the murder; and by his repulsion at Svidrigailov, a character who flouts moral standards. Only at the end of the novel, in his Siberian prison, does Raskolnikov finally begin to recognize that he has violated not just a human law but God’s law as well. 

Crime and Punishment is the story of the battle between Raskolnikov’s intellectual arrogance and his conscience. He constantly attempts to run from his conscience but he can’t escape it. Ironic events force Raskolnikov to face the conflict and ultimately decide his destiny. Dostoevsky uses this device to explain the complex conflict raging within Raskolnikov, and in turn to reveal his message about mankind: that anyone through the acceptance of guilt and suffering can be reformed. Although Raskolnikov commits murder, through his guilt and the love of others towards him, he is saved.

Dreams in literature are often used as a tool that enables the reader to gain insight into the character’s subconscious demons. This is apparent in the infamous horse dream of Crime and Punishment. Critics, such as Rene Welleck aver that “[t]his dream is crucial in showing the dualism of Raskolnikov. Through the analysis of this dream the reader can more fully understand the nature of the internal split that plagues Raskolnikov. This dream, enacting a tragic catharsis, is introduced with calculated ambiguity. Is the dreamer actually remembering an episode of his childhood or is he imagining the memory?” In any case, thought the dream is of the past its meaning is all in the present. The pitiful little mare, whipped across the eyes and butchered by Mikolka and a crowd of rowdy peasants, stands for all such victims of life’s insensate cruelty, in particular such victims as Sonya and Lizaveta whose appeal to Raskolnikov is that of “poor gentle things . . whose eyes are soft and gentle.” Also, the mare stands above all for Raskolnikov himself, and in embracing her bleeding head in a frenzy of compassion it is himself he is embracing, bewailing, consoling. He is present in the dream not only as the little boy witnessing an act of intolerable brutality but as at once its perpetrator and victim too. The dreams imagery is entirely prospective in that it points ahead, anticipating the murder Raskolnikov is plotting even while exposing it as an act of self-murder. Its latent though-content is a warning that in killing the pawnbroker he would be killing himself took and it is indeed in this light that he understands his deed afterwards when, in confessing to Sonya, he cries out: “Did I murder the old woman? I murdered myself, not her! I crushed myself once and for all, forever. ” The cathartic effect of the dream is such that upon awakening he recovers the sense of his human reality, feeling ” as though an abscess that had been forming in his heart had suddenly broken . . . he was free from that spell, that sorcery, that obsession.” 

 But the catharsis is momentary, and he no sooner hears that the pawnbroker will be alone in her flat the next evening than he is again gripped by his obsession. (18).Raskolnikov can only purge himself of his guilt through suffering. He deals with the mental and physical tribulation brought upon him by his crime. His troubles are compounded by the conflicting personalities which he possesses. The reader is inclined to characterize him by his cold, intellectual side. Without the contrasting humane side of his nature; however, Raskolnikov never realizes the errors in his theory and actions. Raskolnikov is defined by the dualistic nature of his personality, with each facet being just as vital as the other is.

Raskolnikov’s cold side leads him to develop his theory, and thus to commit murder. This side of him bases all decisions on reason and rationalization (although it is sometimes incorrect), rather than on feeling. It is purely stoical, without emotion. The other side of his character is kind and compassionate. Without this side being presented the reader views him as an evil murderer, and not a mislead victim, as Dostoevsky intends.

In the novel Raskolnikov engages in sporadic acts of kindness. He gives money to the Marmeladov family, he attempts to aid Marmeladov when he dies, and he tries to get a drunken girl home and away from her pursuer. All of these deeds were done without premeditation. He simply feels that at the time it is the right thing to do. After a short period of time his outlook dramatically reverses. He starts to rationally analyze what he has done, and then feels that his actions were stupid. This transition marks the return of his cold side, and it occurs after every kind thing that Raskolnikov does.

These shifts between two distinct personalities give Raskolnikov two separate points of view. The novel is founded on the distinctions between the two points of view, and the reader gets both angles. Both Raskolnikov’s generous and evil actions are essential to his character because they allow the reader to identify with these two points of view and the two facets of his personality.

Further criticism downplays the importance of dualism as a theme to this novel and points out that it is secondary to the greater message of finding redemption through Christ. Although this does not negate the use of dualism and doubles, it gives these actions a different perspective downplaying them to the readers. A synopsis of Crime and Punishment as offered by The Columbia Encyclopedia promotes the psychological exploration in relation to what this novel is truly about; however, it makes clear the importance of the redemption through Christ’s salvation.

In Prestuplenie i nakazanie (Crime and Punishment) Raskol’nikov’s espousal of a `rational’ superman morality results only in the squalid murder of a pawnbroker, followed by Raskol’nikov’s own self-torment which eventually leads him to an unconvincing `salvation’. . . Dostoevskii’s heroes are strong but divided personalities, engaged in intimate and frequently mortal debate with themselves, their `doubles’, and the reader over the moral basis of their actions. His murder-centred plots are a visionary, fantastic, and mythically structured re-working of the sensational and extremist life observed in his journalism. The polarized themes of reason and unreason, faith and unbelief, moral freedom and moral slavery, frame the tension of modern man, a tension which finds a precarious resolution in the vision of Christ, Dostoevsky’s moral-aesthetic ideal.  It is not salvation; however, which dominates this novel. Clearly doubles and dualism is of predominate importance. In choosing Raskolnikov’s name, he has given one important clue to his character. The word raskol, in Russian, means “schism” or “split.” Dualism is the key to Raskolnikov’s character. He is torn between the desire to do evil and the desire to do good.

Raskolnikov is so torn apart by conflicting thoughts and desires that he often seems to be two characters. Indeed, Dostoevsky’s technique is to surround Raskolnikov with complementary or opposing others that mirror his repressed inner self. The reader soon notices that one side of his personality is aggressive and detached, like Svidragailov, while the other is caring and compassionate, like Sonya. In a schematic sense, Sonia is a double that represents his metaphysical, spiritual side, Svidragailov a double that stands for his physical, nihilistic side.

Throughout the novel, Raskolnikov moves, alternately, from one to the other as he attempts to resolve the burden of a guilty conscience. Even the space in which he moves reflects the dual nature of his personality. When he visits Svidragailov in the tavern, it is a descent into the darker (or subterranean) parts of his soul; conversely, when he follows Sonya to her apartment, he ascends into a spacious room with high ceilings, an ascent, as it were, into the realm of the spirit. After the crime, these two alter egos compete for Raskolnikov’s attentions. However, because of his pride, he tries to hide from any open acknowledgment of either one. This mask of denial is the basis of Dostoevsky’s irony in scenes where Raskolnikov is clearly drawn to the spiritual side of Sonya or the criminal side of Svidragailov. Raskolnikov especially finds it hard to admit that he is drawn to a self-denying victim like Sonya because it violates his idea of the superman. It is a bit easier to identify with an aggressive victimizer like Svidragailov. This is because he embodies the ruthless behavior of a man who has overstepped the laws of society. But until the epilogue, Raskolnikov is attracted to these opposing doubles. As Dostoevsky’s notebooks suggest, it is a conflict between innate feelings and ideology. Sonya represents Raskolnikov’s innate morality and the goodness of his heart, while Svidragailov stands for the evil of abstract theories. Not surprisingly, when Svidragailov dies, the theoretical voice of Raskolnikov’s personality seems to fade out and the Sonya voice begins to speak with greater conviction. Although this is not a total unmasking of the lie of nihilism, it is an important first step towards confession.

Yet it is not only the physical landscape that amplifies and reflects Raskolnikov’s inner condition. Dostoyevsky’s handling of other characters also plays a key role in the development and exposition of the central figure. As Raskolnikov moves through the city, he seems to move through a charged atmosphere in which every encounter triggers a resonant response in his soul. Thus, his chance meeting with Marmeladov introduces the concepts of suffering and self-sacrifice, concepts that will become so important to Raskolnikov later in the novel. More importantly, the characters that surround Raskolnikov often seem to serve as potential doubles or alter egos. That is, the traits that these characters embody represent potential directions for Raskolnikov himself. On one side stands the humble Sonya. She is willing to sacrifice herself for her family, and she puts the ideals of love and service to one’s fellow humans above any notion of self-aggrandizement. On the other side stands the corrupt Svidrigailov. He indulges in extreme forms of debauchery simply to relieve his boredom. Svidrigailov tells Raskolnikov that he considers the young man to be something of a kindred spirit, and although Raskolnikov does not wish to admit it, he senses that there may be some validity to Svidrigailov’s assertions. When Svidrigailov informs Sonya that Raskolnikov only has two paths to choose from, either a bullet in the brain or Siberia, he has effectively identified the choices that lie in front of the wretched young man. Only Sonya’s appearance outside the police station at the end of the main section of the novel prevents Raskolnikov from emulating Svidrigailov’s example and committing suicide. Instead, he follows her advice, confesses his crime, and with her love and support he ultimately finds redemption in Siberia.

Porfiry is the only character who is Raskolnikov’s intellectual equal, and the only one who understands the complex motives for his crime. The ironic, mocking tone he uses to talk to Raskolnikov reminds some readers of the arrogance Raskolnikov himself shows other people. The investigator’s emphasis on psychological analysis as a way of detecting criminals is almost as revolutionary as Raskolnikov’s belief in crimes of principle. The major difference between them is that Porfiry’s theory stresses the social good, while Raskolnikov’s means social anarchy. Some critics suggest that Dostoevsky intends Porfiry to represent Russian solutions to Russian problems in contrast to the Western European sources of Raskolnikov’s mistaken theories.

It is with Svidrigailov that the idea of the double is most fully developed. Apparently he had a real prototype; the notebooks call him “Aristov,” after a character in the prison memoirs. He is surrounded with details connected with the Gothic tradition, underlining the emergence of “doubling” from the literature of the supernatural. The fact that we have heard many terrible things about this major character before he actually appears adds much to the suspense surrounding him. He appears at the end of a nightmare, the dream reenactment is a continuation of that dream. Note that this is precisely the halfway point of the novel, adding to the characters “centrality.”

Furthermore his appearance straddles a boundary, not only between chapters, but between parts, meaning that readers wait for the next monthly installment (in this case it was two months) to find out more. Making readers wait for the next move of a mysterious character is a classic device to heighten suspense.  Raskolnikov himself is unable to understand his own behavior, and his suffering is not only intellectual and spiritual, but also aesthetic, for he is offended by the ugliness of his crime (vividly illustrated by his dream in which a horse is savagely beaten). Critic Christopher R. Pike noted that:

Dostoevsky was the first novelist to dramatize the principle of uncertainty or indeterminacy in the presentation of character, and many other scholars agree that this skillfully depicted uncertainty is a key to the novel’s greatness. Raskolnikov resembles other Dostoevskian characters in his dual nature in fact, his name is derived from the Russian word for split. On one side is the cold, exacting intellect, and on the other is the warm, imperfect humanity; he is torn between the two sides. After a long period of suffering and punishment both before and after confessing to the murders, Raskolnikov finally achieves redemption through the Christian faith. Yet many scholars find this redemption unconvincing; they claim that Raskolnikov never truly repents his crime and remains proud and isolated to the end. Nevertheless, the character Raskolnikov has generated much critical attention since the novel’s publication, and the authentic impact he continues to make on readers attests to Dostoevsky’s complex, skillful characterization. (27-30).

Dostoevsky often uses secondary characters to mirror his protagonist, and Svidrigailov is frequently seen as the embodiment of Raskolnikov’s destructiveness and yearning for power. Critic R.P. Blackmur calls him Raskolnikov’s other self, and most other scholars concur. Raskolnikov senses his similarity to Svidrigailov even though he is repelled by the man, and Svidrigailov also perceives their likeness. Svidrigailov’s decision to kill himself attests to his profound ennui and despair. Dostoevsky has often been praised for creating in Svidrigailov a complex character whose wickedness is tempered with flickers of compassionhe gives both Dounia and the Marmeladovs money they desperately need, and he allows Dounia to escape even after she has tried to kill him. Svidrigailov resembles not so much a gothic villain with a completely evil nature, but a human being whose behavior has destroyed others and, ultimately, himself.

Sonia Marmeladov represents Raskolnikov’s capacity for good. Said to be based on Dostoevski’s second wife, Anna Snitkina (reportedly a stabilizing influence in his life), Sonia is a fair-haired, thin, pale eighteen-year-old whose gaudy clothing contrasts with her gentle expression and remarkable blue eyes. Though her family’s deprivation has forced Sonia to become a prostitute, her true nature is pure and spiritual. Passive and self-sacrificing, she submits willingly to the humiliation of her occupation. Sonia is the novel’s representative of Christianity; it is she who pleads with Raskolnikov to seek redemption through suffering and faith, and her influence ultimately triumphs. Through Sonia, Dostoevsky voices several of the novel’s concerns: when Raskolnikov questions the morality of her own choice during their discussion of his guilt, for instance, she asks, What, then, is to be done? The difficulty of overcoming despair is a theme frequently explored in Russian literature. She also reads to Raskolnikov the biblical story of Lazarus, thus illustrating both her faith in miracles and her desire to raise Raskolnikov from the dead, as it were. Sonia immediately forgives him when he confesses his crime and in general refuses to judge or condemn other human beings. Some critics have found Sonia colorless and unrealistic, but most consider her a compelling embodiment of faith.

Sonia’s father, Marmeladov, is the cause of his family’s deprivation, choosing to spend his time drinking rather than trying to improve their situation. Dostoevsky’s depiction of the Marmeladovs’ poverty has been seen as generally symbolic of suffering and pain in the world; it illustrates specifically how a family may be destroyed through alcoholism, a subject that is known to have interested and troubled Dostoevsky. Marmeladov’s bloated face, wild eyes, messy hair, and disorderly clothing signify his degradation. His wordy, self-berating lamentation in the tavern about the course of his downfall and the pain he has inflicted on his higher-born wife and unfortunate children is both comic and pathetic. Marmeladov has been interpreted as yet another double of Raskolnikov, reflecting the isolation, thwarted ambition, and feeling of debasement that typify Raskolnikov. Also like Raskolnikov, Marmeladov has brought harm upon himself and others for no apparent reason.

Raskolnikov’s close friend, Dmitri Razumihin, is much more sympathetically portrayed. His name derives from the Russian word for reason, and he serves as a good-hearted, hardworking foil to the tortured, self-involved Raskolnikov. He provides hospitality to Raskolnikov’s mother and sister when Raskolnikov neglects them, and he eventually falls in love with Dounia and founds a publishing business that will support them after Raskolnikov is exiled to Siberia. Though Razumihin is fond of his friend and loyal to him, he has no illusions about Raskolnikov and perceives the dual nature of his personality. (Cox, 345-346).

In what way, then, does Svidrigailov double Raskolnikov? Both are murders in a sense, for Svidrigailov appears to be morally, if not legally, responsible for the deaths of two individuals, or at lease we are led to believe this by several characters with the narrators complicity. And yet during their first conversation, Svidrigailov is unaware of Raskolnikovs murder. Even so, it is Svidrigailov who presses the issue of their secret similarity in a criminal conscience. He seems to have prescient, not to say supernatural, knowledge of it. “Well, didnt I say that there was some point in common between us? . . . It seems to me I did say it. Just a moment ago, after I came in and saw that you were lying there with your eyes closed, and you yourself were pretending right then I said to myself This is the very one!” And later he adds: “Well, didn’t I tell the truth when I said that we were like two peas in a pod?” (literally, “one field of berries”). Raskolnikov is in a better position to appreciate their shared blood-guilt, but it is he who resists most strongly the idea that they are doubles. Julian Connolly states that Svidrigailov is Raskolnikov’s id (ono).. . . surely the most interesting section of the epilogue from a literary and psychological point of view:

In his sickness he dreamed that the whole world was condemned to fall victim to some sort of horrible unheard-of and never before seen fatal plague, which was proceeding out of the depths of Asia into Europe. Everyone would perish except certain people, a very few chosen ones. Some sort of trichinae appeared microscopic creatures which would infect people’s bodies. But these creatures were spirits, endowed with intellect and will. Once they had taken these creatures into their bodies, people would become possessed and insane right away. But never, never had people considered themselves so intelligent and so unshakeable in their knowledge of the truth as did these infected people.

The dream goes on to describe at length the mass-scale aggression that this intellectual infection produces, finally concluding as follows:

 ”The pestilence grew and moved further and further. The only people in the whole world who could save themselves were a few people, pure and chosen ones who had been predestined to found a new race of people and a new life, to renew and purify the earth, but no one had ever seen these people anywhere; no one had ever heard their words and their voices.”

It is a dream about aggression for the sake of ideas, and as such it is a fitting epilogue to the novel and prologue to the twentieth century. It takes some of the aspects of Raskolnikov’s individual intellectual aggression and sketches them out on a social and international canvas, showing how the same aggressive paradigms operate on the level of inter-group relations.

The impact of this novel on modern psychology is still discussed in criticisms today. 

“The fresh and profound insights which Dostoevsky added to our knowledge of the human soul have been discussed thoroughly and admirably by many of his critics. All that needs to be done, therefore, is to remind the reader summarily of then; effort can be more profitably put into an analysis of the means through which these insights find expression. Thus, it is a commonplace that Dostoevsky anticipated Freud; that he was cognizant of the fact and understood the role of the unconscious; that he had a lucid knowledge of the duality exhibited by the human psyche and of its consequences; that he understood adequately the function of dreams; that he know how shame leads a man to frustrate the actions through which he attempts to appease it, and how pride is the expression of insecurity and shame; how cruelty constitutes self-castigation, and how injured vanity takes revenge through love. In short, all the insights that have become commonplaces since Freud were clearly his own; nor can I think of any important phenomenological datum furnished by the Viennese scientist which had escaped the observation of the Russian novelist. (Wellek, 74)

 Works Cited

 

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition Copyright 1993, Columbia University press. Licensed from Inso Corporation

Connolly, Julian, An Overview of Crime and Punishment, in Exploring Novels, Gale, 1998

Cox, Gary, Crime and Punishment: A Mind to Murder, Twayne Publishers, 1990

Encarta ® 98 Encyclopedia 1993-1997, Microsoft Corporation

Gibian, George, PMLA, Vol. LXX, No. 5, December, 1955, pp. 970-96

Glicksberg, Charles, The Literature of Nihilism, Gale Research, 1994

Pike, Christopher R., Fedor Dostoevskii: Overview in Reference Guideto World Literature, 2nd ed., edited by Lesliey Henderson, St. James Press, 1995

Rahv, Philip, Characteres in Nineteenth-Century Literature, Gale Research, 1993.

 

 

 

 

 

—————————

Stratification and Social Class

It is extremely relevant, in order to do an accurate sociological analysis, to recognize the role of stratification.  This is especially true when examining the role social class has on success.  To delude ourselves into believing that stratification has no place within the structure of upward mobility and potential on an academic, political, or leadership scale is akin to saying that a doctor without an education can operate as well as a doctor who has graduated medical school.  Through social class, society becomes a part of our consciousness in which we act upon. 

Social class, also described as castes, is one of the most common ways individuals are classified.  Factors determining social class are power, location, education, occupation, income and medical care.  We are all specified in a class ranking from upper class, middle class, working class and lower class.  Our class can also be determined by our ancestors, or as Peter Berger states, “most of the time the game has been “fixed” long before we arrive on the scene.  All that is left for us to do, most of the time, is to play it with more or with less enthusiasm”(Berger 87).  Moving up or down class status depends upon varying factors, in which solid education and knowledge are strong tools in accomplishing those goals.

Sociologists use methodology to analyze specific phenomena, social class and better to better understand society as a whole.  Each society has a system of ranking and stratification.  Many individuals either improve their status of class or fair worse; however, no positions are generally fixed or fully secure.  “That is by the use of various symbols (such as material objects, styles of demeanor, taste and speech, types of association and even appropriate opinions) one keeps on showing to the world just where one has arrived” (Berger79).  Expectations in life, probabilities of situations occurring along with an individual’s economic status are factors of class arrangement and stratification.   In following this line of reason, our sense and mentality are part of who we are and where we may inevitably end up.  In our current society one can move from lower class to an upper class of living; however in other countries it may be more difficult to move in class status. Many consider themselves to be either part of the middle or working class, which, percentage wise, dominates live in the United States.  “Different classes in our society not only live differently quantitatively, they live in different styles qualitatively” (Berger 80).

Members of the upper class are.  The upper class society consists of approximately 0.5 percent of the population.  Within the upper class are the leaders, executives, royalty and those in power.  Things that distinguish this socio-economic group are they are receive the highest incomes and best education.  Unearned income, membership to private clubs, preparatory schools and social registers also figure into being a member of this elite class.  The majority of this class is in the private sector, with about $700,000 dollars income per family member totaling about 2.8 million dollars.  Upper class members are in a privileged position living a luxurious lifestyle.  Marriage, as an institution, is strongly encouraged among this upper class but encourage mainly within the confines of mingling with those in their own class.  “However, which people actually marry each other, one finds that the lightening-shaft of Cupid seems to be guided rather strongly within very definite channels of class, income, education, racial and religious background”(Berger 35). 

Immediately beneath this class is the upper middle class, which represents approximately eight to twenty percent of the population.  Those with upper middle class status predominately have advanced degrees past college.  They include professionals such as lawyers, doctors, and professors. Average incomes for this class are about $80,000 dollars per family unit.  The ability to move into the upper class is much more realistic with this class than any other.  Here, the emphasis is put on education and work rather than on maintaining a lifestyle, obtaining security or family.

The middle class, the next group on the socio-economic scale, usually has a college education along with a positive standard of living.  Most government or city employees belong to this class.  Middle class families are known to own property and provide their children with education.  The middle class family have adequate access to education and enjoy a level of economic stability; however, this stability is precarious on keeping the status quo and thus, this group tends to lead a more secure and stable existence rather than adventuring out of their class. 

The lower middle class members usually have a high school diploma or associates degree with no further education.  They are considered “white collar making approximately $40,000 dollars per family unit.  The lower middle class represents about thirty percent of the population.  This class represents the prerequisite education for following a career path and tends to assist, although not altogether provide, educational resources to their children.  Although oftentimes they own property, their situation is continually unstable financially and they easily become locked into the career path that was originally chartered.

On the tails of the lower middle class is the working class, also known as “blue collar” workers.  Traditionally this group will have a high school diploma; however contain little further education and work at mechanical, manual or unskilled careers.  The average income is about $30,000 per family unit. The working class represents about twenty percent of the population.  This class will encourage their children to seek education, but do not traditionally give them the resources to obtain advanced education.

At the bottom of the caste, or social class system, is the working poor and underclass.  The working poor and underclass, usually have no education or a GED, earn under $18,000 dollars per year and are, therefore, barely able to survive. The working poor or lower class tend to work unskilled or semi-skilled jobs.  They include charitable agencies or possibly part-time woman shoe salesman such as myself.  The lower class is approximately ten percent of the population.  Educational opportunities for this group are very limited and depend heavily on state or governmental support.

Each of these social classes, as described above, demonstrate different aspects of the data needed when a sociologists attempts to do an analysis of either the people or location of people.  To understand the effects of the classes stratification upon itself aids the sociologist to make learned analysis of the reasons for demonstrated behaviors and conditions.  To attempt to explain why children in a lower socio-economic, depressed area of a city drop out of high school, for example, the sociologist would have to understand that the child of this stratification would have been reared believing that future higher educational opportunities would never present themselves to this group.  It is similar to the reaction received in a classroom where the subject matter is advanced calculus; meanwhile, the student merely intends to be a garbage man.  What point is there in learning advanced calculus would be the natural question asked by such a student?  Therefore, that student, upon concentrating on more practical courses, does poorly or fails his calculus course. 

The social stratum where a group lies directly results in their behaviors and way of life.  To understand peoples in early Europe would be impossible without understanding the life of serfs, the concepts of fealty, the stratification of religious icons and religion and the concepts brought in by each social class.  It is through this deeper understanding that we are able to not only understand a time so distant from the one we live in now, but a people who live lives so completely different from our own.  The sociologists role is to take all stratums into account and by examining the social stratum of each group, coming up with a conclusion as to their motivations and beliefs.  This is why stratification is an important factor to sociological analysis and conclusions.  But what proof is there that stratification is a pertinent factor in perception.  And furthermore, what proof is there that stratification can, and would, corrupt society in ways which sociology must take into account.  The answer can be found 34 years ago.

In 1968 the effects of stratification were clearly proven when a study known as Pygmalion In the Classroom, brought to sociologists attention the importance of self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations.  Two Harvard researchers in 1968 R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson told professors in a San Francisco elementary school that a new test had identified certain students as “bloomers”.  These students were expected to make strong achievement gains during the school year.  In reality the identified students were selected at random without formal identification or testing.  As the year progressed, the “bloomers”, especially those in early grades, did make significant achievement gains.  Rosenthal and Jacobson attributed these gains to teachers expectations and their differing treatment of identified students.  The “Pygmalion effect” or “self-fulfilling prophecy” stated what teachers expect from or believe about students influences and performance.

As show in the Pygmalion study, the perception of the stratification on any social class has the effect of giving those members the belief that they are unable to achieve a higher social standing.  If a child born of a lower socio economic class were to possess the capacity to achieve that which a member of the lower upper class can achieve, the perception of the child as to their abilities would be developed by people who, perhaps unwittingly, dooms them to remain either in, or very close to, their birth class.  Alternately, should a lower class child choose to believe they have the capacity to break through that glass ceiling, the members of the desired class, who would be their peers, must accept that person into their inner sanctum.  This has traditionally proven problematic, as is bore out by the long-standing Men Only clubs, old boys networks religious and racial segregation.  “The working-class individual who wants to join an upper-middle class church will be made to understand in unmistakable terms that he would be happier elsewhere.  Or the lower-middle-class child with a taste for chamber music will come up against strong pressures to change this aberration to musical interests more in accord with those his family and friends” (Berger 81).  Such restrictions are existent in our society due to the unfortunate limitations in which class we are a part of.  Fortunately, I am glad to say in this day and age race is slowly become less of an issue in determining one’s lifestyle than a generation ago, however racism and classification of genders and ethnic background are still existent.  Thus, when deciding that a person elects to adopt the stereotypical behaviors of his class, the sociologist must weigh the effect of stratification upon this individuals decision to do such.

Stratification can occur with authority, power and prestige.  Naturally, authority being present in the fact that the executives which set the standards for the lower classes who work for them; however, stratification can occur in positions of power which can extend to the political, and thus, policy making arena.  It is the upper class socio-economic groups, which are capable of financing and catapulting their candidates into the seats of power that inevitably are the nationwide decision makers.  Although democracy and voting is meant to give leverage to all Americans, the press and publicity that a candidate achieves through their upper class contacts enable their rise.  Once placed in a position of power, this man of the people can now cater to the class that originally made the candidate.  An example of this is the rise to power of Michael Bloomberg.  Although spin doctors and an unlimited public relations budget allowed Michael Bloomberg to come across to the New Yorker as a politician for the people, recent events have shown that again the special interests of the class which Bloomberg resides within are carefully protected while the lower and lower middle socio-economic classes are made to bear the weight of the needs of the city.  The cigarette tax, the proposed rise in public transportation fares, and his total disregard for the strike of the Queens bus drivers are all examples of how the needs of the lower classes are frequently disregarded by the upper classes.  This is, in part, because there is no way for Mayor Bloomberg to project himself into the situation dealt the lower socio-economic groups.  Fortunately for us, the President of the United States, although having enormous power and policy-making insight, has checks and balances to keep a limit to his authority.  In western society we have the power to change factors whether for positive or negative in determining our class structure.  Social class structure is a factual reality.  Class is a cultural phenomenon, which partially revolves around one’s articulation.

Time and space are huge contributes to the social class we end up.  Positive use of time and space can lead to a comfortable setting and social class.  Our status in society can be determined through our ethics, morals and values.  Loyalty produces royalty along with courage and stability.  Society in many layers runs on stratification.  We attempt to reward ourselves based on stratification through motivation and inspiration.

The media and television are a huge part of our socialization.  We open our ears to the media to be aware of what is going on in the world. However from reading articles and class discussion, I currently watch television less then one hour per day, because of the time wasted and suspension of cognitive reasoning and thinking.  Social stratification flows through the media, and as a result a huge part of how we interact with one another is born there.  Generally, those who are classified in the lower class watch more television than upper-class members.  The executives, primarily members of the lower upper class or upper class, are the people making the decisions on what reaches the airwaves and what does not.  The decisions on what will impact and otherwise impress the lower socioeconomic groups are made by members who not only do not ascribe to their beliefs, but do not realize any potential growth.  Simplistic, unintelligent shows geared at allowing viewers to suspend all thought and motivation for mobility have become the mainstay for lower to lower middle class members.  Shows which not only promote the maintenance of this class, but also make their troubles entertaining and enjoyable.  But what is truly enjoyable about belonging to that class?   Readings in class show how studies among teenagers viewing television can lead to violent acts and misbehavior.  “Television violence may desensitize viewers, or depictions of violence without its real-life consequences may prompt viewers to assume that it is acceptable, the researchers speculated” (The Washington Post Company).

One concept discussed in class is the domination of leisure time.  Statistics show “children and teens between two and seventeen years old watch television more than three hours per day.  Adult men watch more than four hours, and adult women more than five” (Washington Post Company).  Allowing our consciousness to take a rest, many Americans prolong their leisure time and sit back.  Perhaps long work hours and stress are contributing factors; thus, economics plays a huge role in the social stratification system.