tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64090830749675619352024-03-13T06:51:03.491-07:00The Dragonfly and RavenA blog of the various writings and creative endeavors of Jordan DouglasJordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.comBlogger127125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-43598400693445881492018-07-09T18:59:00.000-07:002018-07-09T18:59:37.928-07:00A Short Overview of Topic and Focus<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Throughout the
course of daily communication, people of all walks of life find it
necessary to highlight some part of their speech, drawing the
attention of the listener to it. This can be done via morphology,
intonation contours, syllabic stress, or, as is of interest in this
essay, syntactic means.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Before examining
specific languages, a discussion of two important terms in
information structure management must be had—these being topic and
focus. A topic is a discourse-level constituent that “sets the
stage” for the predication of the sentence. This can be the subject
of the sentence (which is a sentence-level constituent), as it
typically is in English, or it can be used to give context to the
predication of the sentence. Below in (1) is an example of the later
in Classical Chinese.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
(1) <i>Yenhui ye yi zhi ren ye</i></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Yenhui TOP benevolence GEN person PTCL</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
'Yenhui, he's a
benevolent person.'<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc"><sup>1</sup></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
This is also seen in
English's left-dislocation.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc"><sup>2</sup></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
(2) a. (Original
Sentence) I'll never be able to give up coffee.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
b.
(Left-Dislocation) Coffee, I'll never give it up.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote3sym" name="sdfootnote3anc"><sup>3</sup></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
This is different
than focus, which is the drawing of attention to a constituent in a
non-topical manner, typically to serve some sort of contrastive
purpose. This can be seen well with word order in Klamath, a language
with what has been described as “pragmatic” word order. In
Klamath, when there is surprising information that the speaker wants
to highlight, the speaker fronts the constituents to the beginning of
the utterance. For the following example, it is important to know
that five sacks of beads is a large amount and that Weasel being able
to produce as much as Marten is surprising, hence their respective
frontings.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
(3) <i>t'on'ip wilisik yamnas sael </i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Ɂ</i></span><i>ena</i></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
5 sack bead Marten take</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
'Marten takes five
sacks of beads'</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<i>c'asqay c'is ton'i panti wilisik yamnas </i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Ɂ</i></span><i>ena</i></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Weasel also 5 sack bead take</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
'Weasel takes five
sacks of beads too.'<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote4sym" name="sdfootnote4anc"><sup>4</sup></a></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
English also has a
start of sentence focus, known as clefting, where an argument is
taken to the front of the original sentence and the rest of the
original sentence forms a relative clause that is subordinate to the
argument that was taken out of the original sentence.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
(4) a. (Original
Sentence) Alex paints figurines in the afternoon.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
b. (Clefted
Sentence) It's Alex who paints figurines in the afternoon.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Note that with both
focus and topic, the arguments in focus tend to come at the beginning
of the sentence. Regarding focus, constituents can also appear at the
end of a sentence to be put into focus. English's right-dislocation
does this.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
(5) a. (Original
Sentence) I hate that you call coffee bean-juice.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
b.
(Right-Dislocation) I hate it, your calling coffee bean-juice.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
There are also
languages that use participles or affixes to mark focus. Such is the
case with Boro. The suffix -<i>nw</i> can be added to a verb to
denote that the action as depicted by the verb is contrary to what
the listener believes. This is one of a number of suffixes, whose
finer granularity is not completely understood, in Boro that provided
information to the listener about the event depicted by the verb.
Another such suffix is <i>-bw</i>, which is considered an additive,
saying that the speaker is or has already done the action that the
speaker has stated.<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote5sym" name="sdfootnote5anc"><sup>5</sup></a>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
As for an
explanation of the locations of topic and focus, topic appears first,
before the predication of a sentence, because given information tends
to come first in communication. After all, the stage must first be
set before the play can be performed. However, exciting information
within a play can occur at many different parts of the play, thus the
allowance for focus to be found anywhere. Though, like in a play,
there is a tendency for the beginning and end to be where focus is
generally located. Even within the Boro examples above, these
suffixes appear on the end of words. This is because at a
psychological level, humans tend to pay attention to the beginnings
and ends of things more so than the middle.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Another issue that
I would like to discuss is the use of the terms topic and focus.
While I believe that focus is a fine enough term, I do have issues
with the term topic, as it is also used in at least informal speech
to describe what a sentence or story is about (i.e. the predication
or some greater theme, such as a moral or ethical issue). Topic, it
seems to me, returning to the play analogy, provides a backdrop for
the predication. In some sense, the topic grounds the predication in
the shared conceptual space of the listener. Thus, I feel ground
would be a better term for topic, while its predication (known as the
comment) could be better described as the figure that stands atop or
before the ground. Both topic and focus do lead to some problem in
the initial learning of the terms, as both are used non-linguistic
contexts to discuss concepts that are related but distinct from their
linguistic uses. That being said, I think that once learned, the
difference is not all that incredibly difficult to comprehend.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Thus are some of
the syntactic means by which languages single out constituents for
special attention along with a discussion of topic and comment and
the usefulness of these terms.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a> Taken
from Scott DeLancey's Yenhui Classical Chinese (Simplified) problem
set for LING 452.
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym">2</a> This
is referred to as left-dislocation because on a written page,
English is written from left to right and is typically an SVO
language. Thus, left-dislocation is taking a constituent and moving
it to the “front” of the sentence. A better term for this is
fronting, which is how I will refer to the process in regards to
Klamath below.
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote3">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote3anc" name="sdfootnote3sym">3</a> Example
taken from Scott DeLancey in the class of LING 452 Spring
2018.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote4">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="__DdeLink__71_10534660"></a><a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote4anc" name="sdfootnote4sym">4</a> Example
taken from Scott DeLancey in the class of LING 452 Spring
2018. a gloss of <i>p'anti</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> was
not given at the time. This example was included, however, to
highlight the ordering of information in non-PIE languages and in
particular, an indigenous language of the Americas. </span>
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote5">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="font-style: normal;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote5anc" name="sdfootnote5sym">5</a> Information
taken from Scott DeLancey in the class of LING 452 Spring
2018.
</div>
</div>
<br />Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-41695744903202702432018-07-09T18:54:00.000-07:002018-07-09T18:54:26.101-07:00The "Recoverability Problem"<br />
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b> </b><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
“recoverability problem” is the name for the issue of determining
the role that the head noun of a noun phrase plays in a subordinate
relative clause. This “problem” is more or less a problem for
generativists, who try to isolate languages into individual sentences
that can be understood completely as independent units. In reality,
that is not how language works. Through the context of discourse and
clarifying questions, if need be, the speakers in a conversation will
understand the role of the head noun in its subordinate relative
clause. Such is the case with the following example from Japanese.</span><sup><span style="font-weight: normal;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc"><sup>1</sup></a></span></sup></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"> (1) </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">boku -ga kiji -o kaita resutoran</span></i></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
1.SG SUBJ article OBJ wrote restaurant</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
'The restaurant which I wrote an article in.'</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
'The restaurant which I wrote an article about.'</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
That being said, there is evidence to show that languages do try to
help speakers in helping their listeners “recover” the role of
the head noun in its subordinate relative clause.
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"> One
possible solution to the “recoverability problem” is known as
“the gap strategy.” Essentially, it is a strategy that uses
contrasting case marking. Take for example the following two
sentences from Tibetan.</span><sup><span style="font-weight: normal;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc"><sup>2</sup></a></span></sup><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span>
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"> (</span>2)(a) <i>stag bsad -kyi mi</i></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
tiger kill GEN person</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
'The tiger that the person killed</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">
(b) </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">stag -gyis bsad -kyi mi</span></i></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
tiger ERG kill GEN person</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
'The tiger that killed the person.'</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
English utilizes a non-marked strategy for recovering a head noun
which is the object of its relative clause, which is to simply put
the subject of the relative clause adjacent to the head noun.
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"> (3) The
padawan he trained betrayed him.</span><sup><span style="font-weight: normal;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote3sym" name="sdfootnote3anc"><sup>3</sup></a></span></sup></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
English also does this through so-called WHIZ-deletion (the deletion
of a 'who is' phrase) when the head noun is the subject of the
subject its relative clause.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
(4) The emperor electrocuting Luke Skywalker will soon be killed.
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Another strategy would be the relative pronoun strategy. This can be
seen in many Proto-Indo-European Languages, including English (though
it is quickly degrading in English), with relative pronouns 'who',
'whom', 'whose', and 'which'. 'Who' traditionally marks the head
noun as the (human) subject of the relative clause, 'whom' as the
(human) object, 'whose' as the (human) possessor, and 'which' is used
for non-humans or inanimate things. Though nowadays the use of 'whom'
and 'whose' are almost entirely used to mark a formal register and
they are not used in common parlance. All of these relative pronouns
can also be replaced with the all-encompassing relative pronoun
'that' as well. This suggests that the “recoverability problem”
is not nearly as much of a problem as generativists believe it to be,
as English had a solution to the “problem” but its speakers are
abandoning it.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a>Example
from Scott DeLancey in LING 452 at the University of Oregon during
Spring Term of 2018, 23 April 2018.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym">2</a><i>Ibid.</i></div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote3">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote3anc" name="sdfootnote3sym">3</a>Specifically,
the padawan betrayed him by falling to the Dark Side of the Force
and overthrowing the established Galactic Republic and leading the
extermination of his master's entire religious order.</div>
</div>
<br />Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-18679757883386558652018-07-09T12:59:00.001-07:002018-07-09T12:59:16.185-07:00The Relationship Between Nominalization and Complementation<br />
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">The
relationship between complementation and nominalization is a
relatively close one. After all, a complementary clause is simply a
clause that functions as one of the arguments of the main clause verb
in a sentence. This is exactly what nouns do—serve as arguments of
verbs. Now, there are generally different complement constructions
for different types of verbs. The main three categories of verbs,
according to Givón</span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(</span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Syntax</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
2001), in regards to complementation, are verbs of modality (end,
attempt, start, etc.), verbs of manipulation (demand, make, direct,
etc.), and perception-cognition-utterance (PCU) verbs (look, shout,
think, etc.). All of these different types of verbs can take
different types of complementary clause construction. Some languages
may have more complementary types, such as a supine form (as is seen
in Cariban languages) or forms for different degrees of manipulation
(e.g. successful versus attempted) or indicative or subjunctive. The
later two examples can be seen in Spanish, with the infinitive in
(1)(a) serving as both a complementary clause and a periphrastic
nominalization.</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(1)(a) </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Juan
quir -e viaj -ar</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Juan want 3.SG.PRS.IND travel INF</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
'Juan wants to travel.'</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">(b) </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Juan quir -e que viaj -e</span></i></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<i><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Juan want 3.SG.PRS.IND COMP travel 1.SG.PRS.SBJV</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
'Juan wants that I would travel.'</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Nominalization (of verbs) takes a verb and turns it into a noun.
Thus, one can argue that nominalization is a form of complementation,
as it takes a verb and makes it the argument of another verb. In
fact, for some languages, this is how complementation works. Such is
the case for Bodo.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">(2) </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">nwŋ [i -khw tháŋ -nai] sebaŋ -khw la</span></i></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<i><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">2.SG [3.SG.M OBJ go NMZ] how_much OBJ take</span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
'Take
how much you need.' (Lit. 'You take amount you needing.')<sup><sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc">1</a></sup></sup></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<sup><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></sup></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
According to DeLancey, this is how all complement clauses are formed.
Assuming that this is true, then the all complementary clauses are
just nominalized clauses.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> </span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
English, there is the gerundive verb form, which is a nominalized
form (as it can take determiners and genitives), that is acting as
the complement of main verb. This is a relatively well accepted
nominalized complement clause form.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">(3) Their
gleeful purging of the Jedi Order resulted in the death of tens of
thousands.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<sup><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></sup></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Slightly less clear as a complementary clause would be lexically
derived nouns, such as 'assassination' or 'decimation'. Both of these
forms are verbs that have undergone morphological derivation to act
as a noun in the clause of another verb, thus, it seems to me that
the nominalization has also complementized these verbs, as discussed
above, even though we consider them to be full nouns, as they are
derived. The last form of nominalized complementation in English
would be the periphrastic nominalization, or rather, the infinitive
construction. The best example of this is the idiom, 'to err is to be
human.' In this, the infinitive 'to err' is acting as the subject of
the main verb 'is'. What makes this verb form a nominalization is
that it shares the same external distribution within the sentence as
a noun phrase. This is the case with all other forms of
non-nominalized complement clauses in English—they do not share an
internal structure with noun phrases, but rather, they share the same
external distribution. For example, in the sentence 'I believe that
cats are amazing,' 'cats are amazing' is the complementary clause,
introduced with the complementizer 'that'. Again, this shares the
same external distribution as a noun phrase. One could easily say, “I
believe Yoda.' Alas, with English, the 'that' in the above example is
not obligatory, to the chagrin of L2 learners. Thus, while complement
clauses may not share the same internal distribution of a noun
phrase, they certainly share the same external distribution as a noun
phrase in many instances. From this, I argue that complementation is
a form of clausal nominalization.
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="font-weight: normal; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a>Example
from Scott DeLancey in LING 452 at the University of Oregon during
Spring Term of 2018, 11 April 2018.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<br /></div>
</div>
<br />Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-35664857967821416542018-01-12T16:50:00.000-08:002018-01-12T16:50:47.422-08:00American JoeCrippled by illness<br />
Works the daily retail grind<br />
A high school dropout.Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-84714257099274009922018-01-12T16:25:00.000-08:002018-01-12T16:25:03.456-08:00WritingBlack blood,<br />
Bleeding on white,<br />
Empty page of paper,<br />
Limitless possibility-<br />
Now gone.Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-11857524849955503762017-12-17T14:48:00.000-08:002017-12-17T14:48:32.286-08:00The Lady of FallFrom the bards of the United Empire of Ozur comes the tale of the Lady of Fall, said to live somewhere in the South Remar Forest.<br />
<br />
The Lady of Fall<br />
<br />
Down in the forest deep,<br />
In dark fens where black things sleep,<br />
Beyond the last of the marked stones,<br />
Loves a lady, fair and alone.<br />
She moves from tree to tree without sound,<br />
Yet her voice in your head does pound.<br />
When she looks at you with her lidless eyes,<br />
She takes your soul and your body dies,<br />
She twists your form to be her thrall,<br />
Until silence befalls us all.<br />
<br />Thus is the tale of the Lady of Fall.Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-56994694650327594832017-12-13T00:45:00.000-08:002017-12-13T00:45:00.873-08:00A Hypothetical Course: PHIL 142: Practical Western Political Philosophy<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>PHIL 142: Practical Western Political Philosophy</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Instructor</b>: Jordan Davis (jordandavis@universityemail.edu)</div>
<b>Class Time</b>: M 4-6 @ GSH 103<br />
<b>Office Hours</b>: MW1-3 @ Jordan Davis' Office<br />
<br />
<b>Course Description</b>:<br />
Philosophy is often seen as an obtuse, irrelevant topic of study, reserved for those with too much time and too much money. Philosophers are often seen as not contributing meaningfully to society. This is a false assumption. This course acts as an overview of Western Political Philosophy, from Aristotle to Marx, examining the political philosophies of some of Western Europe's greatest minds, and breaking them down into their practical applications for the lives of the students of the class. The course is split into three parts: Ancient Political Philosophy, Medieval and Renaissance Political Philosophy, and Nineteenth Century Political Philosophy. Students will be expected to read all assigned materials, and write a small essay weekly. Students will be expected to participate in weekly discussions in class about the philosophers being studied. Students will have a cumulative final exam.<br />
<br />
<b>Learning Objectives</b>:<br />
1. Students will be able to analyze political philosophy texts and articulate in a concise manner the meaning of the texts.<br />
2. Students will be able to relate the philosophy being studied to their lives.<br />
3. Students will be able to challenge and engage in a discourse about the philosophy studied<br />
<br />
<b>Grading</b>:<br />
40% – Attendance and Participation.<br />
40% – Weekly Essays<br />
20% – Final<br />
<br />
<b>Class Schedule</b>:<br />
<br />
<b>Week 1: </b>The Importance of Balance, Part 1<br />
Aristotle's <i>Ethics</i><br />
<br />
<b>Week 2: </b>Relationships and Responsibilities<br />
Cicero's <i>On the Republic</i> & <i>On Duty</i><br />
<br />
<b>Week 3: </b>The Separation of Church and State<br />
Augustine's <i>City of God</i><br />
<br />
<b>Week 4: </b>The Importance of Variety<br />
Quentin Skinner <i>The Foundations of Modern Political Thought</i><br />
Leonardo Bruni <i>Panegyric to the City of Florence</i><br />
Guillaume Budé <i>On the Education of the Prince</i><br />
Lorenzo Valla <i>Treatise on the Donation of Constantine</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<b>Week 5: </b>The Importance of the Practical<br />
Machiavelli's <i>The Prince</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<b>Week 6: </b>Resistance is Futile?<br />
Hobbes' <i>Leviathan</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<b>Week 7: </b>Pain and Pleasure<br />
Bentham's <i>On the Principles and Morals of Legislation</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<b>Week 8: </b>The Value of Civil Rights<br />
Mill's <i>On Liberty</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<b>Week 9: </b>The Importance of Balance, Part 2<br />
Tocqueville's <i>Democracy in America</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<b>Week 10: </b>Why Capitalism?<br />
Marx's <i>The Communist Manifesto</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Lesson Plan: Ancient Philosophy 1</b></div>
<b>Subject/Course</b>: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application<br />
<b>Topic</b>: Aristotle's <i>Ethics</i><br />
<b>Lesson Title</b>: The Importance of Balance<br />
<b>Course</b>: PHIL 142<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <br />
<b>Duration</b>: 120 Minutes<br />
<br />
<b>Learning Objectives: </b><br />
Students will be able to understand and clearly express the value that Aristotle places on the idea of balance in a person's life, and how that then leads that person to happiness. Students will be able to apply the lesson of balance to their own lives.<br />
<br />
<b>Summary of Tasks/Actions:</b><br />
1. Explain the concept of good and evil, and that Aristotle views the goal of life to experience good. Happiness is a good unto itself towards it.<br />
2. To help students understand this, have them share experiences that make them smile. Then ask them if they feel happy. Ask if they prefer that feeling to not having that feeling.<br />
3. Explain the idea that you can have too much of a good thing.<br />
4. Relate with ice cream. Ice cream every now and again is a good thing. However, there is only so much ice cream that you will want at any given time. Eating more would make you sick, and would be bad. Not having it at all would mean no ice cream, which would be bad.<br />
5. Have students split into small groups and discuss this idea of balance, and how it applies to the following: the taking in and giving away of money, emotionally supporting persons going through traumatic experiences, experiencing moments of grandeur and “mundane” moments, confronting situations that anger/disturb you.<br />
6. Come back together, and discuss as a group. Stress the importance of balance within these events. For money, giving away too much, and giving away too little. For emotional support, not helping enough, and helping so much as to not be able to help anymore. For grandeur and the “mundane,” the grounding that the “mundane” brings, but the importance of grandeur for the human spirit. For anger/disturbing things, the difference between rage, not sticking up for oneself, and voicing ones problems whilst being mindful of others.<br />
7. Ask for other ways in which students see this applying to their lives.<br />
8. Time for questions, comments, and concerns.<br />
9. Assign homework.<br />
<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span><br />
<b>Materials/Equipment:</b><br />
Aristotle's <i>Ethics</i>.<br />
Computer.<br />
Slideshow.<br />
<br />
<b>Take Home Assignments:</b><br />
Essay: Outside of the examples given in class, in what ways does balance apply to your life?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Lesson Plan: Ancient Philosophy 2</b></div>
<b>Subject/Course</b>: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application<br />
<b>Topic</b>: Cicero's <i>On the Republic</i> and <i>On Duty</i><br />
<b>Lesson </b>Title: Relationships and Responsibilities<br />
<b>Course</b>: PHIL 142<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <br />
<b>Duration</b>: 120 Minutes<br />
<br />
<b>Learning Objectives: </b><br />
Students will be able to understand and clearly express the idea of the the individual good serving the common good, as laid out by Cicero in On the Republic and On Duty. Students will be able to apply this understanding to their lives.<br />
<br />
<b>Summary of Tasks/Actions:</b><br />
1. Explain the idea that we live in an interconnected world, were we are bound together via relationships.<br />
2. Explain that through our relationships, there are certain things that we are expected to do. As a teacher, I must teach. As students, you must learn. You listen to me, and I talk to you. The same exists for all relationships.<br />
3. Explain that fulfilling one's role in a relationship is a good thing, as without those roles being fulfilled, the relationship would fall apart.<br />
4. Talk about the idea that while we all hold different parts in relationships, that we are, in a veil of ignorance, the same. Thus, treating them the same is just.<br />
5. Field the discussion and dissent with this idea.<br />
6. Ask students to come up with relationship expectations for the following: parent and child; partners; cashier and customer; siblings.<br />
7. Come together and discuss, allowing for about 10 minutes of discussion.<br />
8. Separate again, and discuss the following: elected representative and citizen; police officer and citizen; resident assistant and resident.<br />
9. Come together and discuss.<br />
10. Stress the importance of elected officials remaining neutral, and of people in power remaining neutral towards citizens as a whole, in order for there to be equity, and through that, justice.<br />
11. Ask if this is how we live today, and for personal experiences.<br />
12. Time for comments, questions, and concerns.<br />
13. Assign homework.<br />
<br />
<b>Materials/Equipment:</b><br />
Cicero's <i>On the Republic</i> and <i>On Duty</i><br />
Computer<br />
Slideshow<br />
<br />
<b>Take Home Assignments:</b><br />
Essay: What is required of the citizen for the representative, and of the representative for their citizen? Are those responsibilities being fulfilled? Explain.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Lesson Plan: Ancient Philosophy 3</b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<b>Subject/Course</b>: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application</div>
<b>Topic</b>: Augustine's <i>Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans.</i><br />
<b>Lesson Title</b>: The Separation of Church and State<br />
<b>Course</b>: PHIL 142<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <br />
<b>Duration</b>: 120 Minutes<br />
<br />
<b>Learning Objectives: </b><br />
Students will be able to understand and clearly express the need for the separation of the church and state in Augustine's Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans. Students will be able to apply the logic to their personal lives, and be able to critically analysis current state of of the church and state in the United States and abroad.<br />
<br />
<b>Summary of Tasks/Actions:</b><br />
1. Will explain to students the idea of the Earthly City and the Heavenly City.<br />
2. Field questions about the differences between the two cities.<br />
3. Explain the reasoning for the separation of church and state for Augustine—that being that the affairs of the Heavenly City and the Earthly City are supposed to be separate, and that it is the Church's job to help groom us for the afterlife, and not the Earthly City's.<br />
4. Field questions (Expect approximately 5 minutes)<br />
5. Discussion of the idea of the separation from the religious perspective. (Expect at least 10 minutes)<br />
6. Raise the idea of separation for the humanistic reason of not oppressing people for their beliefs. Expand this to the Protestant Reformation, and explain the reasoning behind the Bill of Rights.<br />
7. Discussion of the merits of freedom of religion, and the separation of church and state in this context (10 minutes or so).<br />
8. Begin talking about current political climates.<br />
9. Discussion of abortion.<br />
10. Discussion of equal rights for LGBT+ persons.<br />
11. Discussion of the idea of “family values” and the codification of them in laws.<br />
13. Comments, questions, and concerns.<br />
14. Assign homework.<br />
<br />
<b>Materials/Equipment:</b><br />
Augustine's <i>Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans.</i><br />
Computer.<br />
Slideshow.<br />
<br />
<b>Take Home Assignments:</b><br />
Essay: What is the role of religion in modern world? What role should it have within the state, if at all? Why? Explain.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Lesson Plan</b>: Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy 1</div>
<b>Subject/Course</b>: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application<br />
<b>Topic</b>: Civic Humanism<br />
<b>Lesson Title</b>: The Importance of Variety<br />
<b>Course</b>: PHIL 142<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <br />
<b>Duration</b>: 120 Minutes<br />
<br />
<b>Learning Objectives: </b><br />
Students will be able to understand and clearly express the need for variety and a holistic education, as expressed by the Civic Humanists. Students will be able to identify the benefits to their personal lives that they will gain from gaining a liberal arts education.<br />
<br />
<b>Summary of Tasks/Actions:</b><br />
1. Begin the class by introducing the idea of specialization.<br />
2. Use the example of architecture. You can make perfect buildings with an understanding of math and physics. Show incredibly dull, but practical buildings. Then explain the humanistic element, the need to understand the use of spaces, and designing for potential use, and then show beautiful cathedrals and other such buildings. That is the difference between specialization without breadth.<br />
3. Discussion the practical applications of a liberal arts education.<br />
4. Why do we study literature? To understand the human condition. So that we better empathize with other people. So that we might be able to think critically about situations, and express our thoughts.<br />
5. Give example of use as a doctor, as a manager, as a teacher, as a police officer, as a lawyer, as a politician.<br />
6. Field questions.<br />
7. Why do we study history and social sciences? To understand the human condition. So that we may better understand why people do what they do. So that we may better understand and analyze information put before us, and then find practical applications of that information to our lives.<br />
8. Relate back to prior examples. Give example of an engineer, of a office worker, of an accountant, of a retail worker.<br />
9. Stress the importance of giving back to the community.<br />
10. Discuss the merits of charity, and experiences with giving and receiving charitable donations.<br />
11. Questions, comments, and concerns.<br />
12. Assign homework.<br />
<br />
<b>Materials/Equipment:</b><br />
Quentin Skinner <i>The Foundations of Modern Political Thought</i><br />
Leonardo Bruni <i>Panegyric to the City of Florence</i><br />
Guillaume Budé <i>On the Education of the Prince</i><br />
Lorenzo Valla <i>Treatise on the Donation of Constantine</i><br />
Computer<br />
Slideshow<br />
<br />
<b>Take Home Assignments:</b><br />
Essay: How can a liberal arts education help you in your desired future career?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Lesson Plan</b>: Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy 2</div>
<b>Subject/Course</b>: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application<br />
<b>Topic</b>: Machiavelli's <i>The Prince</i><br />
<b>Lesson Title</b>: The Importance of the Practical<br />
<b>Course</b>: PHIL 142<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <br />
<b>Duration</b>: 120 Minutes<br />
<br />
<b>Learning Objectives: </b><br />
Students will be able to understand and clearly express the practical idealism of Machiavelli, as he explained it in The Prince. Students will be able to apply this practicality mindset to their daily lives.<br />
<br />
<b>Summary of Tasks/Actions:</b><br />
1. Begin with a brief history of Florence, Machiavelli, and his motivation (that being return from exile) for writing The Prince.<br />
2. Discussion of the shrewdness and “practicality” that Machiavelli sets out. Let students lead the discussion, but proceed to the next point if conversation dies.<br />
3. Discussion of how this practicality can be applied humanistically to our modern lives.<br />
4. Discuss the value of extensive bureaucracy, and the elimination of elements of it.<br />
5. Discuss the idea of practical sentences for punishments for criminal acts. Compare prison time to community service or other work programs.<br />
6. Discuss the practicality of imprisoning people without then providing them with the ability to reintegrate into society, thus creating a cycle of imprisonment and crime, and a burden on the state.<br />
7. Discussion of practicality versus humanistic methods and actions.<br />
8. Is Machiavelli right?<br />
9. Questions, comments, and concerns.<br />
10. Assign homework.<br />
<br />
<b>Materials/Equipment:</b><br />
Machiavelli's <i>The Prince</i><br />
Computer.<br />
Slideshow.<br />
<br />
<b>Take Home Assignments:</b><br />
Essay: Can Machiavelli's idea of practicality be applied to the modern world in a humanistic way? Are they inherently opposed ideas? What do you think the role of Machiavelli's thoughts are in our society today? Explain.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Lesson Plan</b>: Medieval and Renaissance Philosophy 3</div>
<b>Subject/Course</b>: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application<br />
<b>Topic</b>: Hobbes' <i>Leviathan</i><br />
<b>Lesson Title</b>: Resistance is Futile?<br />
<b>Course</b>: PHIL 142<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <br />
<b>Duration</b>: 120 Minutes<br />
<br />
<b>Learning Objectives: </b><br />
Students will be able to understand and clearly express the ideas of contractarianism, as set forth by Hobbes in his Leviathan. Students will be able to apply contractarianist thought to the modern political discourse that they are a part of.<br />
<br />
<b>Summary of Tasks/Actions:</b><br />
1. Explain that the world is a competition for scarce resources, and that in this state, we are all free, but in danger of others taking our freedom through force. By us all sacrificing a bit of our freedom, we gain the good that comes from being safe, and knowing that our stuff will be protected (e.g. police and private property).<br />
2. Field questions on this (5 minutes approximately, if possible).<br />
3. Explain the idea that by existing, one is entering into a contract with a state, and that with a contract, one is required to fulfill certain responsibilities (cf. Cicero's ideas of responsibility). This contract relates to the rights that you are giving up in return for safety and other services that the state provides.<br />
4. Take questions (Allow for up to 5 minutes, approximately)<br />
5. Explain the idea that the actions of the state are the will of the people, and that if a state is oppressing a group of people, that is the will of the people, for else, they would change the state, or the state would not be doing this.<br />
6. Allow for discussion (Approximately 10-20 minutes)<br />
7. Lead large group discussion for the implications that this has with the current presidency.<br />
8. Lead discussion as to whether or not Hobbes is right.<br />
9. Questions, comments, concerns.<br />
10. Assign homework.<br />
<br />
<b>Materials/Equipment:</b><br />
Hobbes' <i>Leviathan</i><br />
Computer<br />
Slideshow<br />
<br />
<b>Take Home Assignments:</b><br />
Essay: Do you agree with Hobbes? Do you think that the current presidential and congressional situation is a result of the “will of the people,” or do you think that it is something else? Explain.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Lesson Plan</b>: Nineteenth Century Philosophy 1</div>
<b>Subject/Course</b>: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application<br />
<b>Topic</b>: Bentham's <i>On the Principles and Morals of Legislation</i><br />
<b>Lesson Title</b>: Pain and Pleasure<br />
<b>Course</b>: PHIL 142<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <br />
<b>Duration</b>: 120 Minutes<br />
<br />
<b>Learning Objectives: </b><br />
Students will be able to understand and clearly express the fundamentals of Utilitarian thought, as posited by Bentham's On the Principles and Morals of Legislation. Students will be able to apply Utilitarian thought to their daily lives.<br />
<br />
<b>Summary of Tasks/Actions:</b><br />
1. Explain the concepts of pleasure and pain, and how this informs all living creatures.<br />
2. If pleasure is good, and pain is bad, should we not seek to maximize pleasure and minimize pain?<br />
3. Now, apply this to idea to personal situations. Have students split into small groups. Present them with the trolley problem, with several variations (5 evil people, 1 good person; whether or not they have to actively do the action or not, etc.)<br />
4. Now, let us apply this logic to the prison system. Lead discussion on how penalties should be given in this framework.<br />
5. Discussion of the validity of punishment, as it is the infliction of pain.<br />
6. Discussion of whether or not an action that would not/could not be repeated should be punished in a great way (long jail time, etc.), as it is not acting as a deterrent for the offender, who would not do it again.<br />
7. Discussion of the death penalty, and the idea of not living meaning that there is no potential for pleasure at all.<br />
8. Expansion of discussion to healthcare, pitting private insurance versus single-payer.<br />
9. Lead discussion with the questions: are there problems with this philosophy?<br />
10. Questions, comments, concerns.<br />
11. Assign homework.<br />
<br />
<b>Materials/Equipment:</b><br />
Bentham's <i>On the Principles and Morals of Legislation.</i><br />
Computer<br />
Slideshow<br />
<br />
<b>Take Home Assignments:</b><br />
Essay: Think of a modern political issue that is debated. How would Bentham answer this debate, given his Utilitarian framework? Do you agree with Bentham and his framework? Do you disagree? Explain.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Lesson Plan:</b> Nineteenth Century Philosophy 2</div>
<b>Subject/Course</b>: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application<br />
<b>Topic</b>: Mill's <i>On Liberty</i><br />
<b>Lesson Title: </b>The Value of Civil Rights<br />
<b>Course</b>: PHIL 142<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <br />
<b>Duration</b>: 120 Minutes<br />
<br />
<b>Learning Objectives: </b><br />
Students will be able to understand and clearly express Mill's modifications to Bentham's Utilitarian framework and his arguments for civil rights. Students will be able to express the value of civil rights, the reason that they exist, and be able to engage in meaningful discourse around policy and the implications that it will have on civil rights and the health of the commonwealth.<br />
<br />
<b>Summary of Tasks/Actions:</b><br />
1. Explain the relationship that Mill had with Bentham through Mill's father, and that while he was raised with Utilitarianism, he never fully agreed with it.<br />
2. Explain the idea of something (in this case, civil rights) causing short term pain (e.g. the a ability to speak freely causing pain for certain individuals due to what you are saying) still be necessary, as the existence of the right causes more pleasure in the form of security than the suppression of that individual's right to speak would have.<br />
3. All of society would not have the right to silence an individual no more than that individual society.<br />
4. Make the distinction of fighting words, inciting violence, criminal conspiracy.<br />
5. Field questions (Allow for approximately 10-20 minutes)<br />
6. Lead discussion on how this applies to other civil rights: freedom of religion, the press, unusual punishment, search and seizure, quartering of soldiers.<br />
7. Lead discussion on the difference between Bentham and Mill. Who does the class agree with more, and why?<br />
8. Do we agree with Mill? Are there problems with his philosophy?<br />
9. Questions, comments, concerns.<br />
10. Assign homework.<br />
<br />
<b>Materials/Equipment:</b><br />
Mills' <i>On Liberty</i><br />
Computer.<br />
Slideshow<br />
<br />
<b>Take Home Assignments:</b><br />
Essay: How does Mill change Utilitarianism from how it was originally presented by Bentham? Is there a right that you think people should have, that is not expressed in law currently in the United States that would be justified with this philosophy?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Lesson Plan</b>: Nineteenth Century Philosophy 3</div>
<b>Subject/Course</b>: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application<br />
<b>Topic</b>: Tocqueville's <i>Democracy in America</i><br />
<b>Lesson Title</b>: The Importance of Balance, Part 2<br />
<b>Course</b>: PHIL 142<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <br />
<b>Duration</b>: 120 Minutes<br />
<br />
<b>Learning Objectives: </b><br />
Students will be able to understand and clearly express the value of a strong judiciary, as expressed by Tocqueville in Democracy in America. Students will be able to critically analyze and discuss the current state of the judiciary, executive, and legislature in the United States.<br />
<br />
<b>Summary of Tasks/Actions:</b><br />
1. Explain the reason for Tocqueville coming to the United States (as a French observer).<br />
2. Explain the perils of too much power in one house of the legislature, and the perils of too much executive power.<br />
3. Explain tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority.<br />
4. Field questions.<br />
5. Explain how, in Tocqueville's mind, the Federalist system of the United States mitigates both of these issues. Highlighting the role of the judiciary, and how the strong judiciary is able to check the other branches of government.<br />
6. Lead discussion as to whether or not Tocqueville is correct in his analysis of the need for a balance between the tyranny of the majority and minority.<br />
7. Lead a discussion as to whether or not the current political balance in the United States is still as Tocqueville once envisioned.<br />
8. If not brought up, make sure to mention: the refusal to vote on President Obama's nominee for SCOTUS, and the ratification of President Trump's nominee; gerrymandering, and elected judges.<br />
9. If the discussion concludes that we are not in the ideal state any more, ask if it is possible to return to that state, and how.<br />
10. Questions, comments, concerns.<br />
11. Assign homework.<br />
<br />
<b>Materials/Equipment:</b><br />
Tocqueville's <i>Democracy in America</i><br />
Computer<br />
Slideshow<br />
<br />
<b>Take Home Assignments:</b><br />
Essay: How would Tocqueville assess the current balance of power in the United States between the branches of government? How does that balance of power positively or negatively impact your life? Explain.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Lesson Plan</b>: Nineteenth Century Philosophy 4</div>
<b>Subject/Course</b>: The Evolution of Western Political Thought and Its Practical Application<br />
<b>Topic</b>: Marx's <i>The Communist Manifesto</i><br />
<b>Lesson Title</b>: Why Capitalism?<br />
<b>Course</b>: PHIL 142<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span> <br />
<b>Duration</b>: 120 Minutes<br />
<br />
<b>Learning Objectives: </b><br />
Students will be able to understand and clearly express the ideas put forward by Marx in The Communist Manifesto. Students will be able to understand the important dialogue that continues with both political and economic systems. Students will be able to critically analyze capitalism as a economic and governmental system.<br />
<br />
<b>Summary of Tasks/Actions:</b><br />
1. Explain the political and social climate of Europe at the time of the writing of The Communist Manifesto.<br />
2. Explain the core concepts of capitalism (private property, free markets, democracy/republicanism, growth, production).<br />
3. Answer questions.<br />
4. Explain the core concepts of communism (public property, planned markets, communitarian rule, continued use of capitalist-created production).<br />
5. Answer questions.<br />
6. Explain Marx's belief of the evolution of markets and societies (from pre-capitalist to capitalist to communist).<br />
7. Discussion: What problems does communist philosophy have, in theory?<br />
8. Discussion: What problems does communist philosophy have, in practice?<br />
9. Discussion: Should we adopt a communist philosophy? Stay with free-market capitalism? Another solution?<br />
10. If not brought up, raise the idea of social democracy.<br />
11. Comments, questions, concerns.<br />
12. Assign homework.<br />
<br />
<b>Materials/Equipment:</b><br />
Marx's <i>The Communist Manifesto</i><br />
Computer<br />
Slideshow.<br />
<br />
<b>Take Home Assignments:</b><br />
Essay: What can we learn from Marxist Communism? What aspects of this philosophy will you apply to your life, if any? Explain.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Final Exam</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
In as much space as you believe in necessary, please write in your green books the practical applications of Western Political Philosophy that are taking away from this course. How are you going to apply this philosophy to your life? Do you already? Who did you agree with? Who did you disagree with? What is valuable? What was not? How would you change this course?Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-15678183361837509482017-11-22T11:56:00.001-08:002017-11-22T12:06:31.345-08:00A Campus WalkI sail through the dark,<br />
Passing from sea to sea;<br />
Oceans of concrete, still,<br />
Reflecting the lights of the moons<br />
Suspended in cages of glass.<br />
Then, I come to an imprisoned sun,<br />
Illuminating the black water with an orange glow<br />
As warm as the light of a fire,<br />
But not nearly so violent.<br />
It invites me,<br />
Drawing me in with the gravity of its beauty.<br />
And I stop beneath it,<br />
Where my friend awaits me in her ship of rubber.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-81248881527425486662017-10-09T21:24:00.002-07:002017-10-09T21:24:44.281-07:00Dear Mr. President<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Dear Mr. President,</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Mr. President, my name is Jordan Davis.
I am a 19 year-old white man from coastal rural Oregon. I am writing
to you today, Mr. President, because I want to talk to you about
something that I think is incredibly important—that being taking a
humanistic approach to life and self-improvement. Let me explain.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Mr. President, we all know that you are
the best president that the United States has had in a long time.
Certainly, you are better than many of your predecessors. However,
you are not the <i>greatest</i> president that the United States has
ever had. In order to get to that coveted position, you will need to
improve yourself. I believe, Mr. President, that the best way for you
to do this is to embrace the teachings of Ralph Waldo Emerson, one of
the most big-league people of his time.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Ralph Waldo Emerson is a dead white guy
from New England, and his speech to Phi Beta Kappa at Harvard is what
I would like to tell you about. In this speech, titled, “The
American Scholar,” Emerson talks about how “life is our
dictionary.” By this, he means that instead of using a big old book
to learn to speak, we should be using our lived experiences. This is
important, as it services his argument that we should not ever be
“the farmer” or “the businessman” or even “the President.”
Instead, we should be “the man who farms,” or “the man who does
businesses,” or “the man who is President.” It is a subtle
distinction, to be sure, Mr. President, but an extremely important
one. You see, if you are only “the businessman” or “the
President,” how can you understand what it is like to work as a
farmer? How can you understand what it is like to work as a teacher,
or in a factory? You can't. You cannot begin to fathom what it means
to be those things if you are only “the businessman” or “the
President.”
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
You might think that this isn't a
problem, Mr. President. That you don't need to know what a person who
farms, who teaches, or who works in a factory goes through—but in
that, you would be wrong. For you see, Mr. President, leaders who
know and can empathize with what their workers go through, are better
leaders. They make more money, and their workers are happier (and a
happier worker is a more productive worker). Not only that, but
without people who farm, there would be no food on your plate.
Without factory workers, no one would be making your famous red hats.
Thus, their jobs—their roles in society—are vital. We cannot live
without them—which means that we need to service them and their
interests. Because, what if they were to get angry, and rise up
against you? Then you wouldn't have food or hats, and you'd be
looking for a new job. You don't need to help them out of love or
some other sort of bullshit. You need to help them out of
self-interest, pure and simple. And the best way to do this, to know
what to do, is to try your hand at farm work, at teaching, or at
factory work. It is to be more than “the businessman.” It is to
be Donald J. Trump, the best man—and President—that the United
States has ever had.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Yours Truly, a Bisexual Lilly-livered
Liberal,</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0in;">
Jordan Davis </div>
Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-80853663865701670182017-10-09T21:22:00.000-07:002017-10-09T21:22:16.146-07:00The Dogwood FruitBefore time,<br />
Before light,<br />
There was nothing<br />
And everything.<br />
<br />
It all came out with a bang.<br />
<br />
Seconds in that early world,<br />
To us would be eons.<br />
A world that was uniform, smooth<br />
Save for the smallest variation,<br />
That created microscopic valleys and mountains<br />
That would give birth<br />
To the glorious incandescence that would become--<br />
Stars and planets,<br />
Space and time, <br />
Water and earth,<br />
Life, the universe, and everything.<br />
That would become the dogwood tree<br />
And the little fruit I hold in my hand--<br />
The universe telling us its story.Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-70338323421954739762017-06-13T19:30:00.003-07:002017-06-13T19:30:49.714-07:00Music and the Women's Liberation Movement<div align="CENTER" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; page-break-before: always;">
Abstract</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
The
traditional women's liberation narrative paints the 1960s and 1970s
in the United States as a time where women made great gains toward
equity. Scholars argue that music from the time reflects this
narrative of women making gains. Through lyrical analysis of the top
one hundred popular singles from 1969-1971, it becomes clear that
within these songs live themes of masculine dominance and violence,
feminine submissiveness, the objectification and possession of women,
and stalking. The existence of these themes is indicative of a
culture that does not view women as equals—a culture that is
misogynistic and shows that the traditional women's liberation
narrative is not fully realized.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<i>Keywords</i>:
women's liberation, stalking, objectification, masculinity,
femininity, music</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
Music and the Women's Liberation Movement</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; page-break-before: always;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">The
traditional narrative of women's liberation tells a story of women
fighting against chauvinism and misogyny in the 1960s and 1970s,
which resulted in considerable gains toward equity. Both contemporary
print media and the work of later scholars support this narrative,
even though it is a simplistic representation of how society viewed
women at the time—insofar as it is limited in its understanding of
the time due to its failure to incorporate the entire scope of
popular culture into its narrative. Careful examination of the top
one hundred popular songs from 1969 to 1971, scholarship on the
treatment of gay men in prisons, and the premier music magazine,
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Rolling
Stone</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">,
reveals that popular music does not reflect the traditional narrative
of women's liberation. It shows instead a culture—at least among
those persons who purchased music—accepting of masculine dominance
(especially regarding violence), feminine submissiveness, stalking,
and the objectification and possession of women.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc">1</a></sup></span></span></sup></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; page-break-before: always;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; page-break-before: always;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.5in;">A
remarkable amount of scholarship exists on the Women's Liberation
Movement detailing both the struggles and the gains of the Women's
Liberation Movement. Alice Echols, for example, recounts both the
methods of resistance and protest used by the movement, as well as
its gains.</span><sup style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc"><sup>2</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Specifically, Echols talks about women earning higher wages,
graduating college at higher rates, the advent of the birth control
pill, and the decriminalization of abortion in 1973.</span></span><sup style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote3sym" name="sdfootnote3anc"><sup>3</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: small;">
According to Dr. Jo Freeman, these gains resulted from women's work
since the suffrage movement and their successful organization and
coordination of the small, independent, and scattered feminist groups
during the 1950s and 1960s.</span></span><sup style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote4sym" name="sdfootnote4anc"><sup>4</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Further, other scholars argue that music was an important avenue for
the liberation of women during the time. Judy Kutulas argues that
music allowed for the unification of like-minded people who might
otherwise be unconnected.</span></span><sup style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote5sym" name="sdfootnote5anc"><sup>5</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Further, Kutulas asserts that music of the time serves as an approach
to understanding the culture. In particular, she argues that music
shows the breakdown of the traditional values and traditions that
formed the foundation of sexist thought and actions.</span></span><sup style="text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote6sym" name="sdfootnote6anc"><sup>6</sup></a></span></span></sup></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> Popular
print media of the 1960s and 1970s also advanced the popular
narrative of women's liberation. </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Rolling
Stone </i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">magazine
reinforced the traditional narrative of liberation in its
installments from 1969 to 1971. “These Four Girls Have Got Class,”
an article by Michael Sherman, is a short biographical article about
an entirely female rock group named Fanny.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote7sym" name="sdfootnote7anc"><sup>7</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Rock, Sherman wrote, was a male-dominated genre. </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">This
made the ability of Fanny to rise in popularity as they did around
the time of the publication of the article remarkable, as it was
abnormal for women to do so</span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote8sym" name="sdfootnote8anc"><sup>8</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
The story that Sherman told of Fanny highlighted a single women's
group doing well in rock, even though that was not the norm., thus
contributing to a narrative of women's liberation. While this did not
explicitly trumpet women's liberation, it did implicitly advance the
women's liberation narrative. </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial;">This
type of story suggested to readers </span></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">that
a change was occurring, even if it was not. </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Rolling
Stone</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
published other, similar articles, such as “The World's Greatest
Heartbreaker: Tales of Ike & Tina Turner, God Knows How Many
Ikettes, and the Closed Circuit TV System.” Written by Ben Fong
Torres, the article recounted the rise of Tina Turner.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote9sym" name="sdfootnote9anc"><sup>9</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Torres went so far as to say that Mick Jagger was the “male Tina
Turner.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote10sym" name="sdfootnote10anc"><sup>10</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Much like the Sherman article on Fanny, this article about Tina
Turner showcased the rise and popularity of a female artist in a
genre that was typically male dominated—thus perpetuating a belief
that there was social mobility for women, as well as a societal
change occurring more broadly. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> However,
The </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Rolling
Stone</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
also demonstrates through its published articles from 1969 to 1971
that it and its writers were contributing to the sexism in mainstream
media of the time by objectifying female artists. In the article
“California White Man's Shit Kickin' Blues,” by John Grissim Jr.,
Grissim discussed a stylistic trend within the country music
industry.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote11sym" name="sdfootnote11anc"><sup>11</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
As the title suggests, the article was almost entirely focused on men
in the industry. However, on the last page of the article, Grissim
talked about country star Judy Lynn.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote12sym" name="sdfootnote12anc"><sup>12</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
In detailing her accomplishments as an artist, such as winning a
prize for the Most Promising Country and Western Music Vocalist,
Grissim commented on her “tight-fitting super flashy Western
clothes.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote13sym" name="sdfootnote13anc"><sup>13</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
He further stated that she accomplished all of this while “[managing]
to keep her figure.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote14sym" name="sdfootnote14anc"><sup>14</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Grissim's language and the </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Rolling
Stone</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">'s
publication of this article shows a prevalent sexism and
objectification of female artist within </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Rolling
Stone</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">.
This sexism and objectification is further exemplified in 1971, when
the </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Rolling
Stone</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
published an article by Robin Green about the Bee Gees. Titled “What
the Bee Gees Mean to Me,” the article talked briefly about the
history of the group, and their importance to Green.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote15sym" name="sdfootnote15anc"><sup>15</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Green then proceeded to spend an entire paragraph discussing the wife
of a band member—who Green failed to give a name to, instead
focusing on describing her appearance, in addition to giving a
picture of her.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote16sym" name="sdfootnote16anc"><sup>16</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
The picture of her, which spanned nearly a quarter of the page, as
well as this paragraph, were completely unrelated to the rest of the
article, and served only as an means to objectify this unnamed
woman.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote17sym" name="sdfootnote17anc"><sup>17</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
These articles, along with the previous articles about Tina Turner
and Fanny, show that </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Rolling
Stone</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
both perpetuated the traditional narrative of women's liberation
during the 1960s and 1970s, while simultaneously reflecting the true,
sexist nature of the era. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> By
looking at the number of female artists on the </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Billboard
Hot 100</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">,
it is evident that women were the outliers in popular music at the
time of the Women's Liberation Movement. In 1969, women sang eight of
the top one hundred songs.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote18sym" name="sdfootnote18anc"><sup>18</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
In 1970, women sang eleven songs.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote19sym" name="sdfootnote19anc"><sup>19</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
In 1971, women sang fifteen songs.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote20sym" name="sdfootnote20anc"><sup>20</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
While initially this appears to be an upward trend, there are several
different factors at play. First, of the thirty-four songs sung by
women (roughly eleven percent), twenty-one of them were R&B/Soul
music.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote21sym" name="sdfootnote21anc"><sup>21</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
R&B/Soul music accounted for roughly twenty-five percent of the
top one hundred popular songs of each year. Within the genre, there
was a rise in the number of songs performed by women. This occurred
in 1971 in part because of the rise of Aretha Franklin and several
hits by the band Honey Cone.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote22sym" name="sdfootnote22anc"><sup>22</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Of the remaining thirteen songs sung by women, only three were rock
songs—the rest were pop.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote23sym" name="sdfootnote23anc"><sup>23</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
The lack of women in the top charts suggests that the narrative that
Torres and Sherman implicitly advance through their articles was
false. This information showed a slight increase in the number of
popular songs performed by women from 1969 to 1970, especially in the
R&B/Soul genre. However, many of these songs were performed by
the same artist or artists, thus there was not an actual rise in the
number of women in the top one hundred. Further, while technically
there is an increase from women performing eight percent of songs in
1969 to fifteen percent in 1971, that is, in reality, a difference of
only nine songs, and thus, shows no significant change. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> It
is through analysis of popular music contemporary to the Women's
Liberation Movement that the lack of nuance of the traditional
Women's Liberation narrative in terms of its incorporation of popular
music is seen. Widely accepted as the authority in the music industry
for top grossing singles, the </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Billboard
Hot 100</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
served as the means by which songs were chosen for analysis for this
essay.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote24sym" name="sdfootnote24anc"><sup>24</sup></a></span></span></sup></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Published annually, the </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Hot 100</i><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
lists for singles from 1969 to 1971 were selected for the purpose of
determining the top one hundred most popular songs of each of the
three years, to then be categorized as songs about love, life, work,
and those portraying race or violence. Songs that did not fit into
any of these categories were put into a miscellaneous category,
however, songs could belong to multiple of the aforementioned
categories. Songs were then further analyzed for their portrayal of
gender dominance and submissiveness, stalking, and the
objectification of women and subsequent claims of possession over
them<i>.</i></span></span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote25sym" name="sdfootnote25anc"><sup>25</sup></a></span></span></sup></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Thirty-six (or twelve percent) of the approximately three-hundred
songs examined contained one or both of the above themes. Fourteen of
the songs were pop songs, ten were rock songs, eleven were R&B/Soul
songs, one was an alternative/indie song, one was a country song, and
one was a funk song. Together, those add up to thirty-eight songs
because several songs belonged to multiple genres. The possession
theme was the hardest of the themes to determine, as most popular
songs were love songs, and English has few ways to denote a
relationships besides the use of possessive pronouns. For the purpose
of this analysis, the emphatic use of possessive pronouns, or the use
of possessive pronouns beyond simply stating the relationship between
the narrator and the person that they are referring to constituted a
song portraying the theme of possession of a person.</span></span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> Objectification
and possession of women was commonplace in the popular music from
1969 to 1971. This could be implicit, such as is the case with
Jackson 5's “I Want You Back.”</span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote26sym" name="sdfootnote26anc"><sup>26</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
In this song, the narrator sings to a woman in which he at one point
“had to himself,” but that now she is in the arms of another man,
he is jealous.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote27sym" name="sdfootnote27anc"><sup>27</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
On its own, this elucidates the treatment of women as objects of
desire, and something which men fight over. However, when paired with
the line, “but someone picked you from the bunch,” the song
demonstrates more concretely that the narrator of the song views this
woman as an object.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote28sym" name="sdfootnote28anc"><sup>28</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Further, it shows that the narrator views women generally as a group
of objects to be perused and selected at the whim of men. This song
represents the implicit objectification and claims of possession
present within popular music from 1969 to 1971. However,
objectification could be even more subtle. In fact, it occasionally
came across as the opposite—treating women with respect. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> Much
of the objectification of women in popular music from 1969 to 1971
was implicit, but some was down-right deceptive. Take for example
“Treat Her Like A Lady” by the Cornelius Brothers and Sister
Rose.</span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote29sym" name="sdfootnote29anc"><sup>29</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
In the song, Eddie Cornelius is lamenting about a question that he
keeps getting asked by his friends—that being, how he can “[gets]
all the women in the palms of [his] hands.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote30sym" name="sdfootnote30anc"><sup>30</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
While this is in itself problematic, as it implies that his friends
see women as merely objects, Cornelius admonishes them for this
behavior, telling them to “treat her [sic] like a lad-ay.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote31sym" name="sdfootnote31anc"><sup>31</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
The entire tone of the song follows this theme of Cornelius giving
his friends advice on courting women, painting Cornelius as a
thoughtful and decent person. However, that is merely the surface
level of “Treat Her Like A Lady.” Over the course of the song,
Cornelius keeps reiterating that if one treats a woman right, “she
give into you , ah-hum [sic].” This shows that the narrator sees
women as akin animals, and if treated a certain way, they will
provide something that men would want. Further, the narrator
recommends making “her” feel that she is needed, as “you know a
woman (woman) is sentimental [sic].”</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote32sym" name="sdfootnote32anc"><sup>32</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
This shows a paternalistic attitude towards women. It suggests that
women are irrational and ruled by their emotions, unlike men. This
song objectifies women by painting them all as being the same and
being similar to animals. It reveals a paternalistic attitude towards
women. This is another example of a more implicit objectification of
women. However, there are many songs that blatantly objectify and
claim possession of women, especially in regards to the idea of
feminine subservience.</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> Assertions
of masculine dominance and female submissiveness share a close
relationship within songs that openly objectify women and that have
male narrators profess claims of possession over them. This is
evident in the song “She's a Lady,” which Tom Jones performed and
popularized in 1971.</span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote33sym" name="sdfootnote33anc"><sup>33</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
In this song, Jones refers to the unnamed “her” as something that
he “[likes] to flaunt and take to dinner” and that “she always
knows her place.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote34sym" name="sdfootnote34anc"><sup>34</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Within these few lines, the sexism of the narrator is apparent. Not
only is he implying that women have a “place” that is subservient
to the narrator—and thus more broadly men—but the narrator
clearly talks about her as an object. Jones' dominance is reinforced
by his saying that he “can leave her on her own.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote35sym" name="sdfootnote35anc"><sup>35</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
This last line implies that he trusts her to do what she is supposed
to do, and to not act out of place. It also implies that other women
are not as submissive as she is, thus further showing his dominance
over her, as he is able to choose to leave her alone without fear of
her rebelling against him. The narrator equates all of this with
being a “lady.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote36sym" name="sdfootnote36anc"><sup>36</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
This suggests a pre-existing societal understanding of what a “lady”
was, and the roles and behaviors that women were “supposed” to
exhibit. The display of dominance over the woman is strengthened by
his constant, emphatic assertions of her being belonging to him.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote37sym" name="sdfootnote37anc"><sup>37</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
The popularity of this song indicates that there was an acceptance of
its message and themes, and thus, an acceptance with masculine
dominance, the objectification of the women, and claims of possession
made by men over them. </span></span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> While
music routinely portrayed masculine dominance, feminine
submissiveness was also asserted by several female artists. Carly
Simon's “That's the Way I've Always Heard It Should Be,” serves
as a prime example of feminine assertions of submissiveness.</span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote38sym" name="sdfootnote38anc"><sup>38</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
The song tells the story of a woman and her experience with marriage.
Simon begins by recounting harmful relationships that her parents and
her friends have—relationships characterized by “tearful nights,
and angry dawns” where “they hate themselves for what they are.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote39sym" name="sdfootnote39anc"><sup>39</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Then, Simon talks about a man that wants her to move in with him,
start a family, and get married.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote40sym" name="sdfootnote40anc"><sup>40</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
She acquiesces, saying that “that's the way I've always heard it
should be,” even though she has doubts about the relationship
alive, stating:</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> “You
say we can keep our love alive</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> Babe
– all I know is what I see – </span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> The
couples cling and claw</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> And
drown in love's debris.”</span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote41sym" name="sdfootnote41anc">41</a></sup></span></span></sup></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></sup></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Simon
further expresses her concern saying, “you say we'll soar like two
birds through the clouds, but soon you'll cage me on your shelf.”</span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote42sym" name="sdfootnote42anc"><sup>42</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
This suggests that she does not want to marry him, but that will
marry him because tradition compels her to do so. However, some may
think that Simon is being sarcastic and ironic, or that she does not
mean what she is saying. This line of thought in proven false by an
interview that Simon gave in 2010 about a new album that she
released, which contained new renditions of her old songs. In this
article, Simon says that the new version of the song reflects her
current views on marriage, and that further, “'[when] I first wrote
it I thought it was an unusual thing for people to break up, and now
all my friends are divorced.'”</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote43sym" name="sdfootnote43anc"><sup>43</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
While Simon does not explicitly state that the 1971 version of the
song was serious and without irony, Simon does implicitly say this by
confirming the truth of her friends being married at the time (also
present in the song), and then saying how that then changed.</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> Feminine
submissiveness is further realized through the use of the feminine to
emasculate and assert power over men. In Jim Downs' </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Stand
By Me</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">,
Downs talks about the seldom-discussed history of gay liberation.
Downs describes a gay man who worked in publishing, that</span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
was “[forced]</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
to dance, and then they chained his hands and his feet to a crossbeam
and beat him. One of his contemporaries describes him as
'effeminate.'”</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote44sym" name="sdfootnote44anc"><sup>44</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Besides the brutality of the scene, Downs' shows that linking men
with the feminine was a way to both hurt them, and then also to
showcase the dominance over this man that Downs already established
the men had through their assault of the man. This is further seen
later in </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Stand
By Me</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
when Downs discusses gay men in prison. In this, Downs paraphrases
Stephen Donaldson, an activist who spent much of his time trying to
bring attention to the sexual violence that gay men faced in prison.
According to Downs, Donaldson said that, “most male victims
perceived their rape as an indictment of their [manhood, because]
rapists often referred to their male victims by female names and
described their body parts using slang associated with female
anatomy.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote45sym" name="sdfootnote45anc"><sup>45</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
This further shows that femininity, at least when associated with
men, is impressed on a person to make them submissive, and to make
the impressor dominant (which, in both cases, was men asserting their
masculinity). </span></span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> Emasculation
as a tool for the assertion of dominance is reflected in popular
music from 1969 to 1971. A prime example of this is Johnny Cash's “A
Boy Named Sue,” highlights the use of the feminine to emasculate
men, and the need for the masculine to assert dominance over other
men and women.</span></div>
<sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote46sym" name="sdfootnote46anc"><sup>46</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
In the song, Cash sings about a boy who was abandoned by his father,
leaving him only the name Sue. This name turns out to be a problem
for Sue, as it brings him such shame that he “roams from town to
town.”</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote47sym" name="sdfootnote47anc"><sup>47</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
Further, the name causes boys and girls alike to laugh at him.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote48sym" name="sdfootnote48anc"><sup>48</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
He responds violently to the boys, but not to the girls.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote49sym" name="sdfootnote49anc"><sup>49</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
This shows that he feels the need to prove his masculinity, and
through it, his dominance, to the other boys. This is corroborated
during a violent interaction with Sue's father, in which Sue's father
says:</span></span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> “'Son,
this world is rough</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> And
if a man's gonna make it, he's gotta be tough</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> And
I knew I wouldn't be there to help ya along</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> So
I give ya that name and I said goodbye</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> I
knew you'd have to get tough or die</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> And
it's the name that helped to make you strong.'"</span></div>
<sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote50sym" name="sdfootnote50anc">50</a></sup></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></sup></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">This
verse demonstrates that Sue's father knew that there would be
conflict between Sue and other boys, as they would bully and attempt
to assert their dominance over him, thus forcing Sue to “get tough”
in order to remain in control of his life as a man. This knowledge
that Sue's father expresses then helps solidify the feminine as
submissive because Sue is only bullied for of his feminine name,
because there is no evidence that Sue's masculinity would be in
question at all if he had a masculine name, this then demonstrates
the use of the feminine as a tool for emasculation and the assertion
masculine dominance. The song also, as part of the culture of the
era, serves as a tool for the normalization of masculine violence and
dominant behaviors. </span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> Men
asserted their dominance both over women and other men through
violence in response to emasculation due to harboring feeling of
sexual inadequacy. Such is the case in Kenny Rogers' “Ruby Don't
Take Your Love to Town."</span></div>
<sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote51sym" name="sdfootnote51anc"><sup>51</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
In the song, Rogers tells the story of a paralyzed veteran, who is
stuck sitting and watching his partner Ruby get dressed up for a
romantic evening on the town.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote52sym" name="sdfootnote52anc"><sup>52</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
The man feels inadequate because of his disability, believing that
Ruby is leaving him because he is unable to please her with “legs
[that] are bent and paralyzed."</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote53sym" name="sdfootnote53anc"><sup>53</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
This feeling of inadequacy emasculates the man, as he is unable to
live up to the expectation of dominance—both sexual and not—that
is present in songs such as “She's A Lady,” causing him to feel
the need to respond to the situation much like Sue did in Johnny
Cash's song.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote54sym" name="sdfootnote54anc"><sup>54</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
This is apparent in how the song ends, with the man saying that, “if
I could move I'd get my gun and put her in the ground."</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote55sym" name="sdfootnote55anc"><sup>55</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
In a mix of jealousy and the pain of betrayal, the man expresses his
desire to commit the ultimate claim of possession, the ultimate
assertion of dominance—the taking of a life. This is the most
extreme of the assertions of masculine dominance that I found within
the three hundred songs examined.</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><sup><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote56sym" name="sdfootnote56anc">56</a></sup></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></sup></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> Several
songs of the era contain underlying themes or a direct representation
of stalking. One such song is Lou Christie's, “I'm Gonna Make You
Mine.</span></div>
<sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote57sym" name="sdfootnote57anc"><sup>57</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
In the song, Christie is singing to a woman, who he clearly feels
intimate with, referring to her as “baby."</span></span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote58sym" name="sdfootnote58anc"><sup>58</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">
However, the language that Christie utilizes for the song tells a
different story. In the first lines of the song, Christie says: </span></span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">“I'll try every trick in the book</span></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> With
every step that you take, everywhere you that you look</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> Just
look and you'll find</span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> I'll
try to get to your soul, I'll try to get to your mind."</span></div>
<sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote59sym" name="sdfootnote59anc"><sup>59</sup></a></span></span></sup>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Here,
Christie reveals that the woman he is singing to does not know him on
the intimate level that is suggested by Christie's later use of the
term of endearment “baby.” Further, Christie opens his dialogue
to this woman with a promise of deception. He says that he will be
following her, and that she will not be able to avoid seeing him—that
he will get into her soul and her mind. This does not depict a
healthy or normal relationship. Christie promises in the next verse
to “never give [her] up” and that he will “make [her his]."</span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote60sym" name="sdfootnote60anc"><sup>60</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">
The chorus has six instances of Christie making this promise.</span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote61sym" name="sdfootnote61anc"><sup>61</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">
This is a clear, emphatic use of a possessive pronoun to express the
relationship between Christie and the woman. Further though, the way
that he uses the pronoun “mine” is important, as it reduces the
woman to be an object. Additionally, Christie's use of tense is
telling If Christie used the present (“you are mine”) or past
tense (“you were mine”), it would still be an assertion of
dominance and possession of this woman, however, it would not have
the same stalking implications that come with the use of the future
tense of the phrase. He further says that he will “never give up”
and that he will be “knockin' night and day at [her] door."</span><sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote62sym" name="sdfootnote62anc"><sup>62</sup></a></span></span></sup><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">
This shows his intent to follow and interact with the woman directly,
which is essentially stalking. Not only is this representative of the
culture, but being a part of culture, it acts as part of the
normalization process for stalking for people in the United
States—especially for children. </span>
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> A
narrative of liberation for women in the United States during the
1960s and 1970s exists within the popular collective consciousness.
It exists within the minds of scholars of the time, as can be seen by
Jo Freedman, who wrote about how the organizational structure of
women's groups at the time allowed for great gains to be made. It
exists in the minds of later scholars, such as Alice Echols, who
writes about how the era was a time of massive gains—the advent of
birth control, the legalization of abortion, and higher wages and
graduation rates for women. Some later scholars, such as Judy
Kutulas, argue that music at the time is representative of the
culture that it comes from, and that the music that existed in the
1960s and 1970s is indicative of a growing turn from tradition—that
it is reflective of a culture of change. Popular magazines at the
time, such as </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Rolling
Stone</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">,
help perpetuate this narrative implicitly through articles heralding
the rise of female artists within the rock industry—though women
constituted a diminutive part of the industry. However, there is a
problem with this narrative, which can be seen by analyzing the
popular music produced in the United States from 1969 to 1971. This
was the height of the traditional women's liberation narrative. As
Kutulas argues, music, and more broadly culture, is representative of
the values, traditions, and ideals that the people who produce it
hold. Through analysis of the one hundred most popular songs of the
three aforementioned years, themes of masculine dominance and
feminine submissiveness, stalking and the objectification and
possession of women become immediately apparent, with thirty-six or
twelve percent of the songs containing one or more of the themes. It
was not just music that contributed to this culture of
objectification. </span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Rolling
Stone also </i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">contributed
to the objectification of women through many of their articles. Thus,
through examination of popular songs from the time and their
contemporary media coverage, the traditional narrative of the 1960s
and 1970s being a time of liberation for women can be seen as, at
least in part, false.</span></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="break-before: page; line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Endnotes</div>
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="docs-internal-guid-a4054cd6-0865-b33d-fe"></a>
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">For information on
contemporary print media supporting traditional women's liberation
narrative see</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">,</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Michael
Sherman, “These Four Girls Have Got Class,” </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Rolling
Stone</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">
(June 24, 1971): 14, and, Ben Fong Torres, “The World's Greatest
Heartbreaker: Tales of Ike & Tina Turner, God Knows How Many
Ikettes, and the Closed circuit TV System,” </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Rolling
Stone</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">
(October 14, 1971): 37-40. These articles misrepresent the state of
women in rock music, portraying Tina Turner and Fanny as
representative of women more broadly, instead of as the outliers
that they were. Alice Echols, </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Shaky
Grounds: The '60s and Its Aftershocks</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">,
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), 75-79, 86, provides a
clear and concise scholarly summary of the gains made by the women's
liberation movement. </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Jo
Freeman, “The Origins of the Women's Liberation Movement,”</span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>
American Journal of Sociology</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">
78, no. 4 (1973): 801-802, </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776604,
provides historical context for the foundation of the women's
liberation movement and its organization. Judy Kutulas, “That's
the Way I've Always Heard It Should Be': Baby Boomers, 1970s
Singer-Songwriters and Romantic Relationships,” </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>The
Journal of American History</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">
Vol 97, no. 3 (December 2010): 684,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40959939, argues for the significance of
music in the advancement of the women's liberation movement, and how
music was reflective of a growing, inclusive culture. For
information on the treatment of gay prisoners, see, Jim Downs, </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Stand
By Me: The Forgotten History of Gay Liberation</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">,
(New York, Basic Books, 2016), 163. For information on popular music
from 1969-1971 see, Joel Whitburn, </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Joel
Whitburn Presents The Billboard Hot 100 Annual</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">,
7th ed. (Menomonee Falls, WI: Record Research, 2016). John Grissim
Jr., “California White Man's Shit Kickin' Blues,” </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Rolling
Stone</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">
(June 28, 1969): 12-19, 22-30, and, Robin Green, “That the Bee
Gees Mean to Me,” </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Rolling
Stone</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">
(April 15, 1971): 20, show contemporary music industry print media
objectifying women. </span>
<br />
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0.02in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym">2</a>
Alice Echols, <i>Shaky Grounds: The '60s and Its Aftershocks</i>,
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2002), 75-79, 86.
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote3">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote3anc" name="sdfootnote3sym">3</a>
Ibid., 78-79, 86.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote4">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote4anc" name="sdfootnote4sym">4</a>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Jo
Freeman, “The Origins of the Women's Liberation Movement,”</span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>
American Journal of Sociology</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">
78, no. 4 (1973): 801-802, </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776604.</span>
<br />
<div id="sdfootnote5">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote5anc" name="sdfootnote5sym">5</a>
Judy Kutulas, “'That's the Way I've Always Heard It Should Be':
Baby Boomers, 1970s Singer-Songwriters and Romantic Relationships,”
<i>The Journal of American History</i>
Vol 97, no. 3 (December 2010): 684,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40959939.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote6">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote6anc" name="sdfootnote6sym">6</a>
Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote7">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote7anc" name="sdfootnote7sym">7</a>
Michael Sherman, “These Four Girls Have Got Class,” <i>Rolling
Stone</i> (June 24, 1971): 14.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote8">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote8anc" name="sdfootnote8sym">8</a>
Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote9">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote9anc" name="sdfootnote9sym">9</a>
Ben Fong Torres, “The World's Greatest Heartbreaker: Tales of Ike
& Tina Turner, God Knows How Many Ikettes, and the Closed
Circuit TV System,” <i>Rolling Stone</i>
(October 14, 1971): 37-40.
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote10">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote10anc" name="sdfootnote10sym">10</a>
Ibid., 37.
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote11">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote11anc" name="sdfootnote11sym">11</a>
John Grissim Jr., “California White Man's Shit Kickin' Blues,”
<i>Rolling Stone</i> (June 28,
1969): 12-19, 22-30.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote12">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote12anc" name="sdfootnote12sym">12</a>
Ibid., 30.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote13">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote13anc" name="sdfootnote13sym">13</a>
Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote14">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote14anc" name="sdfootnote14sym">14</a>
Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote15">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote15anc" name="sdfootnote15sym">15</a>
Robin Green, “What the Bee Gees Mean to Me,” <i>Rolling Stone</i>
(April 15, 1971): 20.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote16">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote16anc" name="sdfootnote16sym">16</a>
Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote17">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote17anc" name="sdfootnote17sym">17</a>
Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote18">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote18anc" name="sdfootnote18sym">18</a>
Joel Whitburn, <i>Joel Whitburn Presents The Billboard Hot 100
Annual</i>, 7th ed. (Menomonee
Falls, WI: Record Research, 2016), 223-225.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote19">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote19anc" name="sdfootnote19sym">19</a>Ibid.,
241-243.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote20">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote20anc" name="sdfootnote20sym">20</a>Ibid.,
257-259.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote21">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote21anc" name="sdfootnote21sym">21</a>Genres
for songs were determined by how songs were classified based on
their search results on their Wikipedia entries. Often, songs had
multiple genres. In particular, many songs were considered to be
both rock and pop, especially in 1969. By 1971, rock and pop songs
were more distinctly classified. An R&B/Soul genre
classification was reserved solely for black musicians, with no
white artists examined having been assigned the R&B/Soul genre
to their music. This is especially apparent with the song “Bridge
Over Troubled Water,” originally performed by Simon and Garfunkel,
which was considered folk-rock and pop when they performed it in
1970, but R&B/Soul when Aretha Franklin performed it in 1971.
Occasionally, some black musicians had songs that were considered
both R&B/Soul and another genre—typically pop.
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote22">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote22anc" name="sdfootnote22sym">22</a>Whitburn,<i>
The Billboard Hot 100</i>,
257-259.
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote23">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote23anc" name="sdfootnote23sym">23</a>
Ibid., 223-225, 241-243, 257-259.
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote24">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote24anc" name="sdfootnote24sym">24</a>
Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote25">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote25anc" name="sdfootnote25sym">25</a>
Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote26">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote26anc" name="sdfootnote26sym">26</a>
Alphonso Mizell, Berry Gordy Jr., Deke Richards, and Freddie Perren,
“'I Want You Back',” accessed
May 14, 2017,
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jackson5/iwantyouback.html.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote27">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote27anc" name="sdfootnote27sym">27</a>
Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote28">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote28anc" name="sdfootnote28sym">28</a>
Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote29">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote29anc" name="sdfootnote29sym">29</a>Eddie
Cornelius, “Treat Her Like A Lady,” accessed June 4, 2017,
http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/cornelius_brothers_and_sister_rose/treat_her_like_a_lady.html.
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote30">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote30anc" name="sdfootnote30sym">30</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote31">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote31anc" name="sdfootnote31sym">31</a>Ibid.
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote32">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote32anc" name="sdfootnote32sym">32</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote33">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote33anc" name="sdfootnote33sym">33</a>
Whitburn, <i>Joel Whitburn Presents The Billboard Hot 100 Annual</i>,
257.
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote34">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote34anc" name="sdfootnote34sym">34</a>
“'She's A Lady'” accessed May 14, 2017,
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tomjones/shesalady.html.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote35">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote35anc" name="sdfootnote35sym">35</a>
Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote36">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote36anc" name="sdfootnote36sym">36</a>
Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote37">
<div class="sdfootnote" style="margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote37anc" name="sdfootnote37sym">37</a>
Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote38">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote38anc" name="sdfootnote38sym">38</a>John
Brackman and Carly Simon, “That's The Way I've Always Heard It
Should Be,” accessed June 4, 2017,
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/carlysimon/thatsthewayivealwayshearditshouldbe.html.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote39">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote39anc" name="sdfootnote39sym">39</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote40">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote40anc" name="sdfootnote40sym">40</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote41">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote41anc" name="sdfootnote41sym">41</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote42">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote42anc" name="sdfootnote42sym">42</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote43">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote43anc" name="sdfootnote43sym">43</a>Ben
Walsh, “Vanity Case: Will Carly Simon reveal the identity of the
mystery man in her Seventies hit You're So Vain?” <i>The
Independent</i> (March 11, 2010).
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/vanity-case-will-carly-simon-reveal-the-identity-of-the-mystery-man-in-her-seventies-hit-youre-so-1919372.html.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote44">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote44anc" name="sdfootnote44sym">44</a>Jim
Downs, <i>Stand By Me: The Forgotten History of Gay Liberation</i>,
(New York, Basic Books, 2016), 113.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote45">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote45anc" name="sdfootnote45sym">45</a>Ibid.,
163.
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote46">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote46anc" name="sdfootnote46sym">46</a>Shel
Silverstein, “A Boy Named Sue,” accessed June 4, 2017,
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/johnnycash/aboynamedsue.html.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote47">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote47anc" name="sdfootnote47sym">47</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote48">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote48anc" name="sdfootnote48sym">48</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote49">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote49anc" name="sdfootnote49sym">49</a>Ibid.
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote50">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote50anc" name="sdfootnote50sym">50</a>Ibid.
</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote51">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote51anc" name="sdfootnote51sym">51</a>Mel
Tillis, “Ruby Don't Take Your Love to Town,” accessed June 4,
2017,
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/kennyrogers/rubydonttakeyourlovetotown.html.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote52">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote52anc" name="sdfootnote52sym">52</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote53">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote53anc" name="sdfootnote53sym">53</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote54">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote54anc" name="sdfootnote54sym">54</a>“She's
A Lady,” and, Silverstein, “A Boy Named Sue.”</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote55">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote55anc" name="sdfootnote55sym">55</a>Tillis,
“Ruby Don't Take Your Love to Town.”</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote56">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote56anc" name="sdfootnote56sym">56</a>While
“Ruby Don't Take Your Love to Town,” is the most extreme
assertion of masculine dominance found within the three hundred
songs examined, it is not the most explicit. For that, please see,
Silverstein, “A Boy Named Sue.”</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote57">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote57anc" name="sdfootnote57sym">57</a>Tony
Romeo, “I'm Gonna Make You Mine,” accessed June 4, 2017,
http://www.metrolyrics.com/im-gonna-make-you-mine-lyrics-lou-christie.html.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote58">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote58anc" name="sdfootnote58sym">58</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote59">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote59anc" name="sdfootnote59sym">59</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote60">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote60anc" name="sdfootnote60sym">60</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote61">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote61anc" name="sdfootnote61sym">61</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<br />
<div id="sdfootnote62">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote62anc" name="sdfootnote62sym">62</a>Ibid.</div>
<div class="sdfootnote">
<br /></div>
<div align="CENTER" style="break-before: page; line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Bibliography</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Brackman, John, and Carly Simon. “That's The Way I've Always Heard It Should Be.” </span></div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Azlyrics</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">. Accessed June 4, 2017. http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/carlysimon/thatsthewayivealwayshearditshouldbe.html.</span>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Cornelius, Eddie. “Treat Her Like A Lady.” </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>OldieLyrics</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">. Accessed June 4, 2017. http://www.oldielyrics.com/lyrics/cornelius_brothers_and_sister_rose/</span>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">treat_her_like_a_lady.html.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Downs, Jim. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Stand By Me: The Forgotten History of Gay Liberation</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">. New York: Basic Books, 2016.</span>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Echols, Alice. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Shaky Ground: The '60s and Its Aftershocks</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">. New York: Columbia University Press. 2002.</span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Freeman, Jo. “The Origins of the Women's Liberation Movement.” </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>American Journal of Sociology </i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">78, no. 4 (1973): 792-811.</span>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">http://www.jstor.org/stable/2776604.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" class="sdfootnote" style="line-height: 32px; margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Green, Robin. “What the Bee Gees Mean to Me.” </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Rolling Stone,</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> April 15, 1971. 20.</span>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Grissim Jr., John. “California White Man's Shit Kickin' Blues.” </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Rolling Stone,</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> June 29, 1969. 12- 30.</span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Kutulas, Judy. “”That's the Way I've Always Heard It Should Be”: Baby Boomers, 1970s Singer- Songwriters and Romantic Relationships.” <i>The Journal of American History</i> 97, no. 3 (December 2010): 682-702.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">http://www.jstor.org/stable/40959939.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" class="sdfootnote" style="line-height: 32px; margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Mizell, Alphonso, Berry Gordy Jr., Deke Richards, and Freddie Perren, “'I Want You Back. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Azlyrics</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">. Accessed May 14, 2017. http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/jackson5/iwantyouback.html.</span>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" class="sdfootnote" style="line-height: 32px; margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Romeo, Tony. “I'm Gonna Make You Mine.” </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>MetroLyrics</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">. Accessed June 4, 2017.</span>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" class="sdfootnote" style="line-height: 32px; margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">http://www.metrolyrics.com/im-gonna-make-you-mine-lyrics-lou-christie.html.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" class="sdfootnote" style="line-height: 32px; margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Sherman, Michael. “These Four Girls Have Got Class.” </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Rolling Stone,</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> June 24, 1971. 14.</span>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" class="sdfootnote" style="line-height: 32px; margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">“'She's A Lady.'” </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Azlyrics</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">. Accessed May 14, 2017. http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/tomjones/shesalady.html.</span>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" class="sdfootnote" style="line-height: 32px; margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Silverstein, Shel. “A Boy Named Sue.” </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Azlyrics</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">. Accessed June 4, 2017.</span>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" class="sdfootnote" style="line-height: 32px; margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/johnnycash/aboynamedsue.html.</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" class="sdfootnote" style="line-height: 32px; margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Tillis, Mel. “Ruby Don't Take Your Love To Town.” </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Azlyrics</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">. Accessed June 4, 2017. http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/kennyrogers/rubydonttakeyourlovetotown.html.</span>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" class="sdfootnote" style="line-height: 32px; margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Torres, Ben Fong. “The World's Greatest Heartbreaker: Tales of Ike & Tina Turner, God Knows How Many Ikettes, and the Closed Circuit TV System.” </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Rolling Stone,</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"> October 14, 1971. 37-40.</span>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" class="sdfootnote" style="line-height: 32px; margin-left: 0in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Walsh, Ben. “Vanity case: Will Carly Simon reveal the identity of the mystery man in her Seventies hit You're So Vain?” </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>The Independent</i></span></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">, March 10, 2017. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/vanity-case-will-carly- simon-reveal-the-identity-of-the-mystery-man-in-her-seventies-hit-youre-so- 1919372.html.</span>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Whitburn, Joel. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><i>Joel Whitburn Presents The Billboard Hot 100 Annual</i></span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">. 7th ed. Menomonee</span>
<br />
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 32px; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">Falls, WI: Record Research, 2006.</span></div>
Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-11276776551407705272017-03-10T16:53:00.000-08:002017-03-10T16:53:39.964-08:00Genderfluidity in Virginia Woolf's Orlando<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;">
At the center of
Virginia Woolf's <i>Orlando</i> is the issue of gender expression and
gender identity. In the beginning of <i>Orlando</i>, Orlando is a
boy—and quite clearly male-identifying. Orlando is described with
he/him/his pronouns (henceforth referred to as male pronouns), and
does nothing to defy gender roles, nor voice discontent or conflict
with their identity. In Constantinople, however, this changes.
Orlando has their biological sex change from biosex male to biosex
female. Because of this change of biosex, Woolf's biographer makes
the decision to switch from male pronouns to she/her/hers pronouns
(henceforth referred to as female pronouns). I believe that this is a
mistake on the part of the Woolf's biographer—as I do not believe
that Orlando identifies as a woman the entirety of the time that they
exist after the transformation; rather, that they are gender-fluid.
This belief comes from Orlando's internal struggle that occurs
throughout the novel after their transformation, and from the actions
that Orlando takes after their transformation. Thus, to eliminate
confusion, I will use they/them/their (henceforth referred to as
gender neutral pronouns) to refer to Orlando.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
The first hint at
Orlando not belonging to the gender assigned to them takes place
almost immediately after their biosex transformation, “Orlando had
become a woman—there is no denying it. But in every other respect,
Orlando remained precisely as he had been. The change of sex, though
it altered their nature, did nothing whatever to alter their
identity” (Woolf 102). In these lines, Woolf's use of the gender
neutral “their” pronoun is most intriguing. By employing this
pronoun, it acknowledges the gender identity of Orlando. If Orlando
was truly a man or a woman, then Woolf would have used male or female
pronouns. Instead, she uses the gender neutral ones. Additionally,
the lines following those quoted above explain that female pronouns
are used “for convention's sake.” By using this as the
explanation of the use of female pronouns, Woolf is saying that it is
not because Orlando is a woman that female pronouns are used, but
because of Orlando's biosex that female pronouns are used—granting
credence to their pronouns not being female. The historical context
is important when discussing the use of gender pronouns in <i>Orlando</i>.
After all, Woolf was writing during the early Twentieth Century; a
time when gender was contentious—and breaking from the gender
binary was not something that was done lightly. Even today, this is
not an easy topic to discuss—with politicians as powerful as the
President of the United States wanting to legalize discrimination
against people within the LGBTQIA3+ community. Thus, given the
context, it does make sense that Woolf uses female gender pronouns to
refer to Orlando after the transformation.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
After the biosex
change, Orlando has to come to terms with the difference in their
lives that having a different perceived gender entails. For Orlando,
this comes with resistance to the norms of the gender binary that is
omnipresent in English society, which occurs nearly instantaneously
in Orlando after their return to English society aboard the <i>Enamored
Lady</i> after their time with the Romani:</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
And here it would
seem from some ambiguity in her terms that she was censuring both
sexes equally, as if she belonged to neither, and indeed, for the
time being she seemed to vacillate; she was man; she was woman; she
knew the secrets, the weakness of each. It was a most bewildering
and whirligig state of mind to be in (Woolf 117).</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Here, we see the
clear admission by Woolf that Orlando does not accept their assigned
gender, nor the gender that they had been assigned prior to their
biosex change. Further, it shows that they know about, and have
experienced the aspects of both genders—and that, in fact, they are
both man and woman at the same time. Further though, the biographer
talks about how Orlando “pitted one sex against the other, and
found each alternately full of the deplorable infirmities, and was
not sure to which she belonged” (Woolf 117). This shows that
Orlando, while belonging to both the male and female genders, also
belongs to neither. This further lends to Orlando being a
gender-fluid individual through their own thoughts.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
The next night,
Orlando goes back on what they said before, thinking, “[ignorant]
and poor as [women] are to the other sex” (Woolf 117). This line,
on its own, seems to say that Orlando has settled the internal
turmoil that their mind was the night before, settling the “whirligig
state of mind,” and accepting the assigned gender given to them by
the gender-binary. Indeed, they yell out at one point later that day,
“Praise God that I'm a woman!” (Woolf 119). This appears to be a
full-fledged acceptance of their assigned gender. However, after
praising God, the biographer notes that Orlando pauses on the word
“woman.” If Orlando does truly embrace their new assigned gender,
with the fervor that is implied by their exclamation, then it
behooves us to ask why Orlando paused on the word “woman.” The
normal reasons for pausing in speech usually come about for the
benefit of the audience—such as letting what was said sink in, or
building tension to emphasis what is being said. However, Orlando
does not have an audience. This leaves but one reason for Orlando to
pause—for uncertainty. Orlando pauses after saying “woman”
because they are uncertain as to their truly being a woman. This
confusion is compounded by the sexuality of Orlando, as Orlando, at
the time of this exclamation, does express sexual desire for women
(Woolf 119). So, not only is Orlando dealing with existing outside of
the gender-binary, but they are also confronting the power of
heteronormativity. While this is another interesting aspect of
Orlando's life, it warrants an investigation of its own, which is not
within the purview of this essay. Though it would appear that Orlando
is bisexual or pansexual based on the partners that they have
throughout the novel.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
The gender identity
of an individual is something that every person must decide for
themselves. In order to know the gender identify of others, we must
ask them how they identify. However, there are also assumptions that
everyone makes based off of the gender-expression of individuals. In
the case of Orlando, gender-expression can key the reader in on their
gender identity, as their mind is in conflict with this point. One of
the ways in which gender-expression occurs that is most apparent is
clothing. Men and women, throughout history in a majority of
societies, have different ways in which they dress. This is
acknowledged by Woolf's biographer, who goes as far as to say that
the clothing is what ties the gender of an individual together, and
that this can be completely independent, if not “in opposition”
to the sex beneath the clothing (Woolf 139). This showing of clothing
affecting expression is seen distinctly when Orlando encounters Nell.
In this encounter, Orlando dresses and acts like a man—because, at
that moment, Orlando is a man. Woolf's biographer continues to use
female pronouns to refer to Orlando during this encounter, however, I
believe that that is due to the time period and the power of the
gender-binary, and the fear of it influencing her work (through
censorship or just refusal to publish her work), because Woolf does
acknowledge that at the moment Orlando is a man. This occurs when
Woolf says, “Yet, having been so lately a woman herself” (158).
With this phrase, Woolf is writing in the past perfective tense,
meaning that Orlando was a woman recently, but is no longer. Woolf
reinforces this point when she says, “She had, it seems, no
difficulty in sustaining the different parts, for her sex changed far
more frequently than those who have worn only one set of clothing can
conceive” (Woolf 161). With this, Woolf is acknowledging both the
changes of gender that Orlando undertakes, and how that is influenced
by the clothing that Orlando wears.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Gender is a
constant in the lives of everyone. Whether subtle or explicit, it
affects how we act, how we express ourselves, and how we think.
Likewise, gender is central in the life of Orlando in Virginia
Woolf's <i>Orlando</i>. In <i>Orlando</i>, Orlando begins as a man in
the court of Queen Elizabeth I, and is later the subject of a biosex
change from their original biosex male state to that of a biosex
female. While the biographer, and others in the novel, refer to
Orlando as a woman, Orlando is actually a gender-fluid individual.
Woolf shows this through her use of the gender-neutral “their”
pronoun at the time of the transformation and with the internal
conflict that Orlando has between identifying with being a man and
being a woman and their feeling that they belong to both and neither
of the genders at the same time. This uncertainty is compounded by
the lack of language and discussion of the gender-binary, and of
heteronormativity (as Orlando most certainly does not “fit”
within the heteronormative framework of society at the time that they
lived). Gender expression, then, is important for us, as readers, in
determining Orlando's gender identity, as Orlando may not be able to
express their own identity. With this, clothing is a vital way for
Orlando to express their gender. When examining their expression
through clothing, we find that the clothes that Orlando wears define
the gender that Orlando has at that moment. Putting all of these
things together allow us to clearly see that Orlando is a
gender-fluid individual. </div>
Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-67907672292453593592017-02-28T16:37:00.000-08:002017-02-28T16:37:26.110-08:00"Edric Maddock's Speech at Lincoln Castle to the TUC (1910)"<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;">
This is an essay that I wrote for my PS 386 class on the differences between the British and American Labour movements.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
"Thank
you President Haslam! What a great introduction! I think that you
were talking about some other guy, because you definately weren't
talking about me." <i>Laughs</i>.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
"Greetings,
comrades! Before I begin, I would like to thank Her Majesty's
Government for allowing us to use this space, and the staff of
Lincoln Castle for being so excellent and accomidating. For those of
you who don't know me, my name is Ederic Maddock. I am a member of
Northern Counties Amalgamated Association of Weavers, and I have come
here to speak to you today about my assignment to the United States
of America, by President Shackelton, to investigate why the labour
movement, which looked like it was going to be as successful in the
United States as it was here in Britain, back thirty years ago, in
1880, has since failed.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
"Thirty
years ago, the labour movements of both Britain and the United States
looked very much alike. Both of these fine countries had labour
working with, and in, politics. In the United States, this was
primarily with the Knights of Labor, and here in Britain, there is
our great union, and the Labour Party, a bit later on. In both
countries, the people sought to have better and safer working
conditions, rights for children, and shorter working days. In short,
in both of countries, there was a push toward policies that would not
only help those organized in labour seeking to pass them, but rather
policies that would benefit all workers. Here in Britain, I would say
that this quest has been successful, with the passing of the Golden
Formula and the Trade Disputes Bill<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote1sym" name="sdfootnote1anc"><sup>1</sup></a>.
We have achieved our goals. We, the workers, the proletariat, have
risen, and have made the world more equitable and just. In the United
States, however, it has only gotten worse for labour since the 1880s.
Labour has stopped federating, and seeking universalist policies
altogether, instead opting for policies that benefit individual
unions more<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote2sym" name="sdfootnote2anc"><sup>2</sup></a>.
Further, labour has withdrawn almost entirely from politics, as the
leaders of the AFL (known rather ironically as the American
Federation of Labor) have taken the position that working through
politics is a waste of time<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote3sym" name="sdfootnote3anc"><sup>3</sup></a>.
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
"This
is why I was given my assignment by President Shackelton, well over a
year ago now. He wanted to know why the labour movement in the United
States failed so utterly, when here in Britian it has succeeded. So,
I hopped on a boat, and sailed across the Atlantic, finding myself in
New York City. There, I talked with an old union organizer who was
associated with the Knights of Labor, an early American federation of
unions, named Daniel Blackstone. Mr. Blackstone told me about the
history of the Knights, and how they brought together both skilled
and unskilled workers to help each other with strikes and boycotts,
but then, additionally, to form labour parties in different states to
help pass pro-labour legislation<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote4sym" name="sdfootnote4anc"><sup>4</sup></a>.
However, the judiciary in the United States, along with President
Taft, worked together to strike down any and all reforms that the
Knights were able to pass, eventually leading people to turn to the
aforementioned poorly named American Federation of Labor, which
focuses on craft labourers, and works with the existing political
system instead of trying to change it fundamentally<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote5sym" name="sdfootnote5anc"><sup>5</sup></a>.
This, I was told by an AFL member named George Chapman.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
"A
momement ago, I mentioned that the judiciary in the United States
struck down the legislation and reforms that the Knights and Labour
passed. I understand if this is a confusing idea, as here in Britain,
the Parliment is the most powerful part of government. However, in
the United States, it is the judiciary that holds the reigns of
power. Due to how the American Constitution is set up, the judiciary
can rule laws to be valid or not based off of if they act in
accordance with the Constitution. They call it judicial review. A
helpful process, perhaps, but as I learned through my discussion of
the matter with former federal judge Tristan Adams, it was used
tyrannically in the United States against labour. Working off of
common law, and the Constitution, Adams told me, that both he and
most of his compatriots, saw the legislation being passed by the
Knights and Labour and affiliated groups and persons, to be part of a
conspiracy to deprive business of their capital<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote6sym" name="sdfootnote6anc"><sup>6</sup></a>—just
as happened here, in Britain. However, here in Britain, Parliment has
the power<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote7sym" name="sdfootnote7anc"><sup>7</sup></a>.
This is why, we, the workers, were able to organize and pass our
reforms and legislation—because we have a system that allows us to
do so. At first, we aligned ourselves with the Liberals<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote8sym" name="sdfootnote8anc"><sup>8</sup></a>,
and we had the Golden Formula passed. Eventually, we created our own
party, and passed the Trade Disputes Bill, something that would not
have been possible in the United States<a class="sdfootnoteanc" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote9sym" name="sdfootnote9anc"><sup>9</sup></a>.</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
"I
have been rather hard on the American Federation of Labor today, and
I think that it was a tad unjust of me to do so. After all, the
reason that they are not working to seek political gains is because
the only political gains that they can make are really within the
legislatures of both state and federal government. And, to be frank,
that is simply not enough in the United States. In order to truly see
political reform in that country, labour will need to replace the
judiciary with sympathetic candidates. This means that our brother
and sister workers across the pond will have to play the long game,
continuing to elect pro-labour candidates, and hopefully presidents,
until judicial positions become vacant, and then they can be filled
by pro-labour judges. This is what they should do. However, comrades,
I do not think that this is going to happen...at least not any time
soon.
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
"I
talked with a printer in Washington, a Mr. Horace Vlain, who told me
about how it was working as a skilled worker in the United States.
Being a craftsman, Mr. Vlain knew that he could not be
unceramoniously replaced by any random John on the street. However,
unskilled workers could be. This is why Mr. Vlain and his union
joined the American Federation of Labor, which focuses on craft
workers. Because of the job security granted to them by their
education and training, they could work together to gain benefits for
their unions and members in a way that was much more efficient, and
plausible, than if they had worked with unskilled union workers. This
was good for Mr. Vlain, and for many like him. But it also left many
in the dust, like Mr. Thomas Wozniak, a Polish immigrant who works in
the steel mills, who has had no improvement to his work life with the
dominance of the American Federation of Labor's "Voluntarism."
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
"That,
comrades, is what I learned in my assignment to the United States to
study her labour movement. While both her and Britian started with a
strong mindset for change through politics and for policies that
would benefit workers everywhere, the fundamentally different
governmental structures in the two countries led to oppossing
outcomes. Here, in Britain, Parliment is the most powerful part of
government, and being democratic, we were able to use it to pass our
legislation and reforms, and thus solidly root social democracy in
the hearts and minds of our country. In the United States, however,
the judiciary is able to overturn laws that it deems to be
"unconstitutional." This, paired with a conservative
judiciary, has led to all of the laws and reforms that American
labour has passed to be shot down, which then has led to the
abandonment of politics by labour, and a fragmented movement, and the
rise of the American Federation of Labor and their particularist
polcies and tactics. Awful as it is, it does make sense.
</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
"Again,
I would like to thank Presient Haslam for having me to speak to you
all today, Her Majesty's Government, for allowing us to use Lincoln
Castle—is it not a beautiful place?—, the Lincoln Castle staff,
and of course, I would like to thank all of you for listening to me.
I hope that in the future, American Labour will be able to suceed,
like we have, here in Britain."</div>
<div align="LEFT" style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote1">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote1anc" name="sdfootnote1sym">1</a>Forbath,
"Law and the Shaping of Labor Politics," 215.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote2">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote2anc" name="sdfootnote2sym">2</a>Ibid,
210</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote3">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote3anc" name="sdfootnote3sym">3</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote4">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote4anc" name="sdfootnote4sym">4</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote5">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote5anc" name="sdfootnote5sym">5</a>Ibid.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote6">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote6anc" name="sdfootnote6sym">6</a>Ibid,
212.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote7">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote7anc" name="sdfootnote7sym">7</a>Ibid,
214.</div>
</div>
<div id="sdfootnote8">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote8anc" name="sdfootnote8sym">8</a>Ibid,
214-15.</div>
</div>
<br />
<div id="sdfootnote9">
<div class="sdfootnote">
<a class="sdfootnotesym" href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6409083074967561935#sdfootnote9anc" name="sdfootnote9sym">9</a>Ibid,
219.</div>
</div>
Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-54397924473752160072017-02-28T16:32:00.002-08:002017-02-28T16:32:57.640-08:00The Southern Civil Rights and Black Power Movements<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Race has always
been a problem in the United States. The fledgling republic nearly
committed genocide against the various Native Americans. Italian,
Irish, and Jewish immigrants were treated with disdain. Chinese
immigrants who helped build the West were openly discriminated
against, as were Japanese Americans during the WWII. Today, the
Republican Party and President Trump actively work to injure and
remove Hispanic and Muslim Americans and immigrants. However, none of
this compares to the treatment of Blacks in the United States. Since
its founding, the United States has built its progress and growth on
the broken backs of black bodies. Slavery was a fundamental component
of the Southern economy, taking a civil war to remove the <i>de jure
</i>slavery from the United States—however this did nothing to
combat the <i>de facto </i>slavery that existed for Blacks in the
United States that stemmed from segregation laws and the complete
lack of economic and political power after their emancipation. In
response to this state of inequality (both racially and
economically), two disparate, yet interconnected, movements rose in
an attempt to improve the lives of Blacks in the United States. There
were the Integrationists (also known more broadly as the Southern
Civil Rights Movement or the Civil Rights Movement) and the Black
Power Movement. Both movements viewed the then-present condition of
the United States and race relations differently. Both had different
goals, politically and socially, and different ways of achieving
those goals. However, these discordant movements did influence each
other, and their leaders did have a dialogue.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
The Integrationist
and Black Power movements were born out off the mass-suburbanization
of whites in the US and the mass urbanization of blacks post-WWII
with the collapse of the sharecropping system, and the advent of the
GI Bill (Hall 1239). The Integrationist Movement sprung out of the
Black Churches that grew to incredible prominence, both politically
and socially, with the massive influx of blacks from rural America
(Morris 4). The Church served as a social nexus for blacks in
America, allowing for political organization that would otherwise be
impossible for impoverished individuals (as almost all blacks were)
to undertake. The NAACP was also created around this time, with a
goal to end of the <i>de jure</i> segregation that was so prominent
in the country at the time. While the Integrationist Movement was
large, and had many leaders, the most well-known of the movement's
leaders is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He saw the United States as a
nation that was segregated—a nation divided culturally. This
divide, to Dr. King, prevents Americans from seeing the promise of
freedom and human rights that is promised to all both in the
foundations of the American Democracy, and then also with the common
Hebraic-Christian heritage that is shared by many in the nation
(Washington 118-119). It is this belief that Dr. King and others in
the the Integrationist Movement held that led to their use of
nonviolent demonstrations in the form of civil disobedience,
boycotting, sit-ins, and freedom-riding that still hold a striking
image in the national psyche of the era—for it was the goal of the
Integrationists to first desegregate, and then integrate both Black
and White America. However, not everyone saw the United States in
such a positive light.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
While the
Integrationist Movement was rising the in the South, the Black Power
Movement was rising in the North, Midwest, and the West. Unlike the
Integrationist Movement, the Black Power Movement did not think that
integration was the answer. Instead, the Black Power Movement
advocated for self-determination and racial solidarity (Joseph 22),
as well as proper representation within government (Marable and
Mullings 445). The Black Power Movement saw the US since its
inception as being flawed—having been built on the backs of black
slaves—comparing the US to a colonizer, and blacks as the colonized
(Ibid.). Integration is also, in the mind of Stokely Carmichael, a
further subversion of the black vis-a-vis the white—as integration
is not a marriage of black and white cultures, but rather black
culture being consumed and destroyed by white culture (Ibid.
445-446). Thus, Black Power is a type of self-defense against White
America and Supremacy (Ibid. 444) This view of the world does not
lend itself to the idea of nonviolent protest. If the problem is not
one of ethics, but one of power, then arguments to morality will not
be sufficient in the alleviation of the plight of blacks. Rather, it
will take direct action, through the accumulation of economic and
political power by blacks in order to force positive social
change—which, at its core, was the goal of the Movement.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
As mentioned above,
the Integrationist and Black Power Movements utilized different
tactics to work toward their goals. The Integrationist Movement,
seeking to bring Black and White America together, implemented
tactics that aimed to change the hearts and minds of White America.
Their choice of tactics was heavily influenced by those used by
Mahatma Gandhi to win independence from the British (Washington 124).
The Integrationist Movement used boycotts (cf. the Montgomery Bus
Boycott), sit-ins (cf. Greensboro) (Black Southern Student 748),
speeches, and rallies (cf. March on Washington). The Black Power
Movement worked towards its goals by first gaining control of black
organizations (cf. SNCC) from the top-down, allowing for
self-determination (Marable and Mullings 445), along with attempts to
take over majority-black districts in the South, and the appointment
of sympathetic individuals into county-level positions of power
(Ibid. 454), the creation of a third political party in the Black
Panthers (Joseph 28), and the accumulation of capital by blacks to
increase their economic positions (Marable and Mullings 445).
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
These two movements
were quite different, in terms of worldview, goals, and the ways in
which they sought to accomplish those goals. However, they did
influence each other greatly. Perhaps the best example of this comes
with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). SNCC was
founded around the same time as the NAACP, and was an instrumental
part of the early Integrationalist Movement that would eventually be
taken over by Stokely Carmichael, and shift its allegiance to the
Black Power, it did retain its political activism and engagement.
Furthermore, Dr. King's “Beyond Vietnam” speech spoke of and with
the same anti-colonial conviction that Black Power utilized for many
years prior.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
With the mass
suburbanization of whites and the mass urbanization of blacks in the
United States, two disparate yet interconnected movements came into
existence—those being the Integrationist Movement and the Black
Power Movement. The Integrationist Movement saw the United States as
being divided, and overlooking its bonds and obligations both to the
fundamental nature of the democracy, and of the shared
Hebraic-Christian heritage. The goal of the Movement was integration
of blacks and whites in society. To do this, the Movement utilized
boycotts, sit-ins, and other forms of nonviolent civil disobedience,
in an argument to the morality of White America, hoping to change its
antiquated beliefs. Meanwhile, the Black Power Movement viewed
America as a flawed state—one built on the exploitation of black
bodies—a colonizer. Seeing the condition of blacks as being
resultant of economics and power dynamics, the Black Power Movement
believed that it would only be through these approaches that Black
America would be able to achieve their ultimate
goals—self-determination and racial solidarity. This involved
complete control of black organizations, as well as actively seeking
to consolidate political power in majority-black districts and
capital through control of county political positions, among other
methods. Lastly, both movements, while different, influenced each
other, as is proven with Dr. King's “Beyond Vietnam” speech. Thus
is how both the Integrationist and Black Power Movements had similar
goals which they then approached differently.</div>
Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-10319852239047965222017-02-12T00:52:00.000-08:002017-02-12T00:52:19.064-08:00Primeval Elements and the French Revolution as Portrayed by DickensEarth. Fire. Water. Air. These were the four original elements recognized by European scientific thought. These powerful, primal elements, exist both as the mundane (cf. drinking water and a campfire) and as the extraordinary (cf. a rising tide and a great blaze)—able to exert a massive and terrible force upon those unfortunate enough to be in their paths. They are overwhelming. They are unstoppable. They are inevitable. The rising tide of the sea cares not if one is a king or a peasant—they will be swallowed just the same. In Chapter 21 through 23 of A Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens uses the imagery of the primal elemental forces in his description of the French Revolution and the actions that the revolutionaries take. This is meant to give the Revolution the feeling of being an overwhelming, unstoppable, and inevitable force—which it does quite well. However, this is a disingenuous invocation on the part of Dickens, as the Revolution was by no means unstoppable, nor inevitable. Further, with this feeling of inevitability comes a feeling of disorganization and chaos—which is also untrue in the Revolution in its insurgent state; though it is an appropriate analogy of the Revolution after it switches from being a revolt to a “government.”<br />
<br />
Dickens invokes primal elemental imagery at every level of the three chapters dealing with the storming of the Bastille, and the period of time immediately thereafter. Chapter 22 is titled “The Sea Still Rises,” and Chapter 23 is titled “Fire Rises.” Now, “Fire Rises” is a quite literal title, as fire does indeed rise throughout France, as many homes of nobility are razed (Dickens 242). However, it does carry the double meaning of the the Revolution being this fire, rising and ruining the old social order by utterly destroying it. In order to understand the title of Chapter 22, one must first go back to Chapter 21, where the water analogies first appear. Dickens begins his water analogies with his description of the action around the wine-shop of Monsieur Defarge, comparing it to a whirlpool of boiling water, and telling of how it consumed the blood of the fallen, fueling it further (223). Here, Dickens establishes the idea that the Revolution is all-encompassing, and that it brings all that is around it into its influence. This is true, in the sense of the power of the influence in the immediate vicinity of Paris, but then also France as a whole. It is not true, however, when looking at the larger picture, many states did not spring into democratic uprising—and many still have not.<br />
<br />
In the storming of the Bastille, Dickens refers to the revolutionary forces as “the raging sea,” “the living sea,” “the raging storm,” and “the ocean” (224). Dickens uses these analogies to describe the way in which the revolutionaries fight against the defenders of the Bastille. By invoking the imagery of the sea and storm, Dickens evokes a feeling of an overpowering, unrelenting, unavoidable—and mindless—force in the Revolution. This is problematic for a few reasons. First, there is the unstoppable feeling that the Revolution gains with this imagery. By no means was the Revolution unstoppable. Democratic uprisings have occurred several times throughout history prior to the French Revolution, and many times since then. From Athens to many of the South American States and Eastern European States, republics and democracy fails fairly consistently. With the proper organization and response, it is entirely feasible that the Revolution could have been destroyed with the storming of the Bastille, instead of succeeding. Second, there is the mindlessness that accompanies with the sea and storms. These are primeval powers, which are not selective nor exclusive about what they do to other persons or things, they simply exist as they are. They consume all that stands in their way, and ignore any blows against them, as they are completely ineffectual. This is not the case with the Revolution—at least not in the case of the storming of the Bastille. This calamitous event had a tremendous amount of planning and organization behind it, with Defarge and several of the Jacques giving orders—both to strike against the Bastille (223), and then later the tactical positioning for the assault of the accursed place (224).<br />
<br />
This, in turn, shows the third problem with the sea and storm analogies: the seeming inevitability that exists with these two forces. Many proponents of ideologies, if not all, believe that the adoption of their ideology is inevitable. This is the case with Marx, and with many today in regards to globalization, capitalism, and the free market economy—and this is the case with democracy, especially as described by Dickens. With Marx, and Communism, the world has seen it attempt to emerge, and fail, at several points in time, namely with the USSR and Mao's China. The same can be said in regards to free market capitalism, which several key states actively resisting it (viz. China). Looking at democracy and republicanism, neither is inevitable, for if it was, would democracy and republics not be the default form of government? And further, why would democracy fail so often, if they were the inevitable trend of humanity? No, democracy and republicanism are by no means inevitable. The other aspect of inevitability is the implication that what is inevitable should happen on its own. However, that is not what happens with the Revolution. It takes years upon years of planning and preparation by Defarge, and others, to commence the revolution. If it was not for the actions of organizers, like those aforementioned above, the Revolution would not have happened. Thus, the sea and storm analogies are disingenuous.<br />
<br />
At the same time, however, the mindlessness that is evoked by these analogies is incredibly apt in describing the behavior and the actions of the fledgling democracy that emerges from the Revolution. Full of executions, and without any real course of appeal, the First French Republic is a shining example of the chaos of democracy, and the tyrannical nature of a government controlled by the majority. With the united power of the majority of the population against the ruling minority, the majority is able to dethrone the minority, and institute their equally as tyrannical rule of law—rather it simply targets a different group of people. Given this newfound power, and a spiteful, vengeance-fueled collective mindset, the First French Republic acts with the same destructive, mindless, and overwhelming power that a true storm would1. And, save for the minority having some sort of weapon or other device (physical or incorporeal) that can “even the odds” between them and the majority, or some other third-party's interference, the actions of the majority, once in power, are truly unstoppable.<br />
<br />
Originally, the fundamental forces of our world were earth, fire, water, and air. While they are no longer seen as the basis of all things that exist in our world, these elements still hold an important, and powerful, position in our collective consciousness. Great typhoons and tsunamis, earthquakes and forest fires all evoke feelings of helplessness for those thinking of them from their overwhelming, unstoppable, chaotic, and inevitable nature. To invoke these awesome primal forces in writing is to evoke these same feelings in the mind of the reader, thus associating the object described with this language to that which describes it. In the case of A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, the use of primal elemental invocation is utilized with the description of the French Revolution, and in particular, the storming of the Bastille. This invocation is disingenuous, as the Revolution is not at all unstoppable, nor is it inevitable or even chaotic. Democracy and republicanism is also misrepresented by the purposeful use of this imagery. It is only after the Revolution has concluded, and the First French Republic takes its place, that such imagery begins to fit that which Dickens is describing.Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-77782090391036334222016-12-05T18:31:00.000-08:002016-12-05T18:31:27.495-08:00Sethe and Sethe<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Central to the story
that Toni Morrison's <i>Beloved</i> is trying to tell is the
relationship that exists between Sethe and the thing that is called
Beloved. As far as Sethe is concerned in the novel, the thing called
Beloved is the ghost of the child that she kills when the men without
skin come to take her and her children back to Sweet Home that has
taken a physical form to live again with her mother. Morrison also
presents Beloved as a metaphor; a representation for all of the
slaves that suffered and died during their forced passage into the
Americas, which is made clear in the epigraph of the novel, and the
chapter containing no punctuation (Morrison 323-24; 248-52). While
the presentation of Beloved as a metaphor for those lost in the
passage is both true and clear, Beloved being the child that Sethe
kills when the slavecatchers come, that has returned to her mother is
an erroneous belief that Sethe, Denver, and the other characters
within <i>Beloved</i> hold. The thing that is Beloved is, in fact,
the manifestation of the subconscious of Sethe, that takes physical
form and torments Sethe in the real world, until Sethe is finally
able to come to terms with herself and her actions at the end of
<i>Beloved</i>.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
If Beloved is the
manifestation of Sethe's subconscious that has taken a physical form,
this behooves one to ask why Sethe's subconscious would be bothering
her. The answer is quite simple, really. Sethe's subconscious is
bothering her because of her guilt for killing of her child.
Throughout the novel, Sethe denies feeling any guilt for killing of
her child, saying to Paul D. when he confronts her on the incident,
“It felt good. Good and right,” (190). Perhaps Sethe does not
feel conscious guilt at the time that she is talking to Paul D. about
her killing her child. After all, she does not want to see her
children live a life of slavery, as she did (192). However, it does
not seem as though she truly accepts this rationalization, as she
does feel guilt subconsciously, which is revealed in the third book,
when she “plead[s] for forgiveness,” from the thing called
Beloved—from her own subconscious. At this point, her subconscious
is not willing to reconcile with Sethe, which is why “Beloved
denie[s] [her pleas of regret and claims of love],” (284). It is
important to note that this admission of guilt does not happen
between the Sethe and another individual, as she is not able to admit
guilt to other people. It happens only between her and herself. This
is also why Sethe's subconscious takes the shape and name of the
child that she killed, because she still feels the guilt of the
act—and what better way to represent this guilt, and to elicit
Sethe's guilt to the forefront of her mind.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Before going any
further, it is prudent to go back to discuss why exactly this
manifestation came about in the first place, advancing from an
incorporeal existence to a corporeal one. It seems that Sethe's inner
turmoil came to a head with the arrival of Paul D. at 124. Moreso, it
is when Paul D. and Sethe become intimate, and Sethe begins to enjoy
herself that the manifestation starts to act up, throwing a table at
Paul D. (22). This is because of the guilt that Sethe feels for
killing her child. Because of this guilt, Sethe's subconscious
refuses to allow for her to be happy with her life—as she does not
feel like she deserves being able to enjoy herself. The initial
combat with Paul D. was not enough to get him out of Sethe's life,
however, which is why Sethe's subconscious takes a physical form as
Beloved. This explains why Beloved is so hostile with Paul D., and
why it slowly moves Paul D. further and further away from Sethe
(134). It even explains why, when it was not able to fully get Paul
D. out of the house, that it began to have sex with Paul D., to
undermine his drive to have sex with Sethe, thus denying Sethe of the
pleasure from Paul D. being around (138). Additionally, it explains
why, when Sethe is contemplating her relationship with Paul D., it
chokes Sethe. Sethe believes that she was choked by Baby Suggs, as
Baby Suggs was usually the one to rub the Sethe's neck. However, the
timing of Sethe's Paul D. contemplation, followed by Beloved then
putting its hands around her neck as a way to provide punishment for
Sethe' thinking about Sethe's possible pleasure, followed by relief
(if not pleasure) from Beloved works as a way for Beloved to further
cultivate Sethe's attachment to it (113). Furthermore, Denver saw
Beloved choking Sethe, or at least, she believes that she did, though
Beloved denies it (119).<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Another reason why
Beloved is not the child of Sethe, but rather a manifestation of her
subconscious, is because of the knowledge that Beloved has. If
Beloved was truly the child of Sethe, and nothing more, then it
should not have the memories and knowledge that it has. In fact, it
should not have any knowledge of the world, other than perhaps the
fact that its mother killed it. Beloved knows more than that. This is
first, and perhaps best seen, with it asking about Sethe's diamonds
(69). There is no reason for Beloved to have known about the
existence of said diamonds, which Sethe had since lost. The reason
that Beloved knows about the diamonds is because it is Sethe, and it
has the memories that Sethe has and is avoiding thinking about—that
she is repressing. Beloved asks about the diamonds in order to get
Sethe to think about her marriage with Halle, and how Halle is not
around. Ultimately, it asks about the diamonds to get Sethe to think
about the day in which she kills her child, so that she will not
forget what she has done. So that she is forced to remember. This is
also why Beloved asks about Sethe's mother, who it would also have no
knowledge of, if it was indeed the child of Sethe, and not an
extension of Sethe (72). Beloved asks Sethe about her mother in order
to dredge up seldom visited memories of her death, in order to, as
before, cause Sethe suffering.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<br />
The next, and most
damning bits of evidence supporting the claim of Beloved being a
manifestation of Sethe's subconscious come late in the novel, in the
chapter inside of the mind of Beloved. This chapter is also one of
the two places in the novel in which the metaphor of Beloved—that
being as representation for the slaves lost in the passage to the
Americas, and those who died in servitude. Also in this chapter,
Beloved says “I am not separate from her there is no place where I
stop,” (248). This is a clear statement by Beloved that it cannot
exist without Sethe—that it is Sethe. With this sentence, Morrison
is clearly telling her reader that Sethe and Beloved are one in the
same, as Beloved is but a mere extension of Sethe, existing as a
cancerous, parasitic force—one that exists to bring guilt to Sethe
for what she did to her child. To make her suffer, because she cannot
forgive herself for what she did. Morrison gives further evidence to
this by having Beloved say, “it is my dark face that is going to
smile at me the iron circle is around our neck” (250). This is in
the middle of a scene in which Beloved is talking about people dying
on a slave ship, so it is referring to Beloved being a slave on the
ship. However, this phrasing is also used by Beloved to describe the
thing that chokes Sethe earlier in the novel, when she was choking
Sethe (119). Beloved also refers to the iron circle being around “our
neck,” utilizing the first-person plural pronoun to indicate both
that it is a metaphor for all slaves, but then also to say that the
circle of iron is around the neck that it and Sethe share.
Furthermore, Beloved also says that, “her face is mine,” (251).
Again, she is referring to another person who is on the ship with
her, as she is representing the departed slaves, but she is
simultaneously. This is reinforced in the following chapter, in which
the voices of Beloved, Denver, and Sethe are merged together. In this
chapter, one of the characters says, though it is at first unclear
who, “You are my face; I am you,” (256). While it could be Denver
or Sethe who said this, it seems unlikely that Sethe or Denver would
say this, as neither of them have used language involving the face in
such a way before, while Beloved has.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
There are two
additional, miscellaneous pieces of evidence that point to Beloved
being the manifestation of Sethe's subconscious. First, there is the
matter of how Beloved acts when Sethe is not in 124 because of her
job. During this time, Denver describes Beloved as “private and
dreamy or quiet and sullen,” (143). It makes sense that Beloved
does not really care for, nor does anything outside of when Sethe is
around, as she is part of Sethe, and exists to bring out the guilt
that she holds. Additionally, there is the knowledge that Beloved has
of the song that Sethe sings to her children, which Beloved then
reproduces (207). This can be used to explain that Beloved in the
child of Sethe (as Sethe believes) or it can be used to explain that
it is a manifestation of Sethe's subconscious. Paired with the rest
of the textual evidence though, it further supports the manifestation
claim.
<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Beloved being a
manifestation of Sethe's subconscious also helps explain the third
book of the novel. Core to this book in the withering of Sethe, and
the growth of Beloved. It is explained in the book that Sethe is
eating barely anything, while Beloved is eating literally like a
pig—albeit, a pig that favors sweets. This gives a literal
explanation of the growth of Beloved and the withering of Sethe.
However, this growth and withering is also a beautiful metaphor for
the domination of Sethe by her subconscious. Over the course of the
novel, Beloved drives away all of the joy in the life of Sethe—from
her children to Paul D. Now, it is literally taking away her
life-force by taking up all of her time and attention. All because
Sethe cannot come to terms with what she did. Her guilt is literally
consuming her. By the third book of <i>Beloved</i>, Sethe cannot
stand up against her guilt, against her subconscious. The one time
that she does try, it pushes her down, making her a mess, apologizing
for what she did, trying to justify and rationalize her
actions—though her subconscious does not accept this (284). It is
through the chorus of black women coming to 124 that Sethe is able to
break away from the dead-locked focus that she has been giving
Beloved for the duration of book three. This allowed for her to see
Mr. Bodwin coming to 124, which then triggered her instinct to
protect her children, as she had done all of those years ago when she
killed her child (309). By attacking Mr. Bodwin, Sethe is finally
able to come to terms with what she did before, as this time, she
defended her child by fighting the man without skin, instead of
killing her child. This act settles her subconscious turmoil, which
is why Beloved flees during this time. This act shows to Beloved, to
Sethe's subconscious, that she really does and did care for her
children and child, respectively.
</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0in;">
Toni Morrison's
<i>Beloved </i>is a story about relationships. The relationship
between master and slave, between Paul D. and Sethe, between Denver
and Sethe, and, most importantly, between Sethe and the thing known
as Beloved. In the novel, Sethe, Denver, and the other characters
believe that Beloved is the spirit of the child that Sethe kills
twenty-eight days after she arrives at 124 when the men without skin
came to take her and her children back to Sweet Home. This however,
is not what Beloved really is. Beloved serves two purposes in
<i>Beloved</i>. She acts as a metaphor for those slaves who died in
the passage to the Americas and in servitude, but she also serves as
the manifestation of Sethe's subconscious—namely, her subconscious
guilt for killing her child. This is seen by the form and the name
that Beloved takes, being modeled off of this child, in addition to
the timing of the arrival of Beloved being around the time that Sethe
attempts to allow pleasure into her life—which explains the actions
that Beloved takes to deny pleasure from Sethe at every turn. Beloved
also holds memories that the child of Sethe could not have, but that
Sethe would. Moreover, Beloved utilizes language when describing
Sethe and its relationship to Sethe that suggest, if not all-out
says, that they are the same person. This claim of Beloved being a
manifestation then makes the third book of <i>Beloved</i> make sense
as a metaphor for the subconscious of Sethe draining her life-force
away, and then explains the departure of Beloved, which is otherwise
unclear as to why it happened as it did. Thus, Beloved is a
manifestation of Sethe's subconscious.</div>
Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-17255967766604291072016-11-10T13:40:00.000-08:002016-11-10T13:40:47.444-08:00Grief and Politics in Grecian TragedyGrief is constantly entangling itself within politics in the tragedies of ancient Greece. From Aeschylus' Oresteia to Sophocles' Oedipus Rex and Antigone to Euripides' Medea, grief created by inter-familial conflicts and struggles weaves itself directly into the political power landscape of the various city-states represented in the plays of the Greek tragedians. Every character in these plays—from the rulers (Oedipus, Creon, etc.) to their families (Clytaemnestra, Medea, etc.) to their courts (Creon, the choruses, etc.)—have their actions directly related to grief. These actions are related to grief in one of two ways: either in the way of motivating the character to seek some sort of vengeance—namely by taking the law into their own hands, and extracting some sort of pain or committing murder—or by the way of having characters, usually the rulers, take action to stop the effects that they think or see grief is causing. Either of these manifestations of grief is directly related to the political power landscape in the Greek tragedies, as the actors are all figures of significant political clout, and their actions all change the political balance of power of their respective city-states. Furthermore, grief also serves as the main force driving the plot in these plays.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the clearest example of grief driving and influencing politics and political action is Aeschylus' Oresteia. In the first of this trio of tragedies, Agamemnon, the central conflict of the play is the return of Agamemnon from the Trojan War, and the hate that Clytaemnestra has for him because of his murdering of their daughter, Iphigenia (Oresteia 136). This hate is the result of the grief that Clytaemnestra experienced from the death of her daughter that festered for the ten years that Agamemnon fought at the city of Pallas. Clytaemnestra also has motivation for killing her husband due to his return with the concubine, Cassandra (Oresteia 125, 143-144). However, this motivation is an additional motivation for killing Agamemnon, not the prime motivation, for Clytaemnestra's speech to the chorus of Argoan Elders shows her intent to seize control of the city from her husband through the double entendre that she so frequently deploys in the course of the Oresteia, saying, “The city is ours – in our hands this very day,” and “Let the best win out,” (Oresteia 115-116). These two lines are a part of a larger speech addressing the victory of the Greek forces at Troy. On their own, these phrases, and the speech itself, could be seen as simply praising the Greeks for their victory. However, given the later murder of her husband to put her and her puppet—Aegisthus—in power, and the description that Clytaemnestra gives of the Trojans as “victims” and that of sobbing infants, these phrases reveal the true, more sinister meaning behind her words.<br />
<br />
In the second of the three plays in the Oresteia, The Libation Bearers, grief drives political action in much the same way that it does in Agamemnon. In this play, Orestes kills his mother, Clytaemnestra, because of her having killed his father in the previous play. The play begins with Orestes standing over the grave of his father, mourning him, and vowing to give him the vengeance that he deserves (Oresteia 177-178). This vengeance was also motivated by the desire of Orestes to return home from the exile that Clytaemnestra imposed on him (Oresteia 177), it is motivated by the order of Apollo to get vengeance for Clytaemnestra's actions (Oresteia 191), and it is motivated by the Orestes' desire for power (Oresteia 198). However, the visceral opening of the play gives the reader the first of the motivations for killing his mother—that being the hate that grew from his grief that was allowed to fester in his exile—and the repeated mentioning of this motivation (Oresteia 192, 199) leads one to believe that it is the driving motivation behind the actions of Orestes.<br />
<br />
In The Eumenides—the last of the three plays of the Oresteia—grief shows itself in a much different manner than it has in the previous two plays. The Eumenides is essentially Orestes' trial for the killing of Clytaemnestra, with the Furies acting as the prosecutors, Apollo acting as the defense, and Athena the judge. The trail in itself is entirely about actions that were caused by grief, and in that way, the play is driven by grief. However, the influence of grief is deeper than that. The Furies have another grief that drives their actions—that being the grief that they hold for the defeat of the chaotic gods of old (of which they are members), and the rise of the new gods. The Furies see the actions that the new gods have taken, both in their ordering of the world, and in how Athena conducted the trial of Orestes, as being unjust (Orestiea 266). This grief that the Furies have regarding the loss of the old order turns into rage after Orestes is allowed to go free, and the Furies then threaten to raze the world, destroying mankind, and all of the creations of the gods. This then drives the rest of the action in the play, as Athena talks the Furies down, and convinces them that they should protect Athens—thus turning their grief into a force that changes political power, by giving Athens an advantage over other city-states (Oresteia 271-272).<br />
<br />
Oedipus the King, otherwise known as Oedipus Rex, is a prime example of grief driving political action in Grecian tragedy. Upon learning of Oedipus being her son, and his having killed her husband (and consequently, his father), Jocasta takes her life with her own hand (Sophocles 1 131). The completion of this suicide, paired with the Oedipus learning of the identities of his mother and his father then lead him to both blind himself and go into a self-imposed exile (Sophocles 1 134, 136-137). Both of these actions were motivated by the grief that both Jocasta and Oedipus felt. Granted, this grief is in both instances mixed with guilt and a whole range of emotions—most of which are difficult to put a name to. However, with both Jocasta and Oedipus, I posit that grief is the main emotion, and therefor the driving motivation, for their actions.<br />
<br />
In contrast to Oedipus Rex, Sophocles' Antigone has grief not only drive political action, but the plot of the play itself. The play begins in the aftermath of the brutal Thebian civil war that took place after Oedipus went into exile between his two sons—Eteocles and Polynieces. The city-state of Thebes is in a time of mourning—both for the death of the two sons of Oedipus, and then for those other men who died in the fighting. Antigone, the sister of these two brothers, wishes to bestow the honors due to all Greeks to her brother Polynieces. She wishes to grieve for him. However, their uncle Creon, who now rules Thebes, has declared that no mourning of Polynieces is allowed, as he was a traitor (since Eteocles was the rightful heir to the throne) (Sophocles 1 22). The grief that Antigone has for her fallen brother makes her defy the order that her uncle gives, and leads to her imprisonment for illegally honoring Polynieces' body. It is clear, then, that grief drives the actions of Antigone.<br />
<br />
However, it also drives the actions of Creon. When Creon takes control of Thebes, he is given a city-state that is in shambles. The old king, Oedipus' father, had been murdered. The city had been held hostage by a sphinx. It had suffered blight and famine. The queen killed herself, and the king (Oedipus), had slept with his mother and had killed his father, the old king. Oedipus then blinded himself, and went into exile. After that mess, his two sons then engaged in a massive civil war. The last thing that Creon wants at this point is more turmoil in Thebes. He needs to stabilize the city-state so that it can heal. Banning the public expression of grief for a rebel—and by all measures, a traitor—is an entirely prudent and logical course of action. Grief can motivate great political action, especially vengeance. In this way, grief drives the actions of Creon. Now, this is not to say that Creon was right in the end, banning the display of grief for Polynieces. In fact, the banning of public mourning of the fallen son led arguably to greater turmoil than if it had not been banned, as if it had not been banned, the events that unfolded in the play would not have occurred, and Antigone and Creon's son would still be alive.<br />
<br />
Euripides' Medea also has grief acting as the primary driver of action for the play. In Medea, Medea is faced with an awful scenario: her husband, Jason, has left her and her children to marry the daughter of the king of Corinth. This sends Medea into a great sadness (Euripides 1 19), one that she does eventually emerge from with a vengeance. Hurt and humiliated, Medea turns her grief into rage, and plots the death of those who wronged her—namely Jason and the Corinthian royal family. Ultimately, she is successful with her plots, killing the royals of Corinth, and extracting a great deal of pain and suffering from Jason through their deaths, and the deaths of his children. Grief also drives the actions of the king of Corinth, much in the way that it drives the actions of Creon in Antigone. The King, by marrying Jason to his daughter, sees the previous wife of Jason as a threat to him, his daughter, and Jason—fearing that Medea will seek vengeance. This fear is well-founded, as she does kill them all. This is why the King seeks to exile Medea and her children, to prevent them from doing exactly what Medea ended up doing anyway.<br />
<br />
Emotions are powerful motivators. Among all of the emotions humans experience, grief is one of the strongest. In Greek tragedies, grief works as the primary driver of both plot, and political action. In Agamemnon, grief drives Clytaemnestra to kill her husband. In The Libation Bearers, grief drives Orestes to kill Clytaemnestra. In The Eumenides, grief drives the Furies to act against both Orestes and Athens. In Oedipus Rex and Antigone, grief drives suicide of Jocasta, Antigone, and Creon's son, the self-blinding and exile of Oedipus, the creation of law to curtail the power of grief, and resistance to said law. Lastly, in Medea, grief drives both the ordering of the exile of Medea, and the murder of the the king, princess, and children of Medea. Grief, politics, and plot, it seems, are all entangled in a never-ending cycle of cause and effect in Greek tragedies.Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-81585274192775888972016-10-03T17:16:00.004-07:002016-10-03T17:19:51.484-07:00El mundo y we<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">El mundo es so vast,</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">And nosotros somos so small.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Yet los vínculos de la humanidad</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Es today stronger than ever--</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For somos semejanzas</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Be greater than</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Somos diferencias.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">For somos valeres--</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">El valore de somos ciudadas,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">De somos pueblos,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">De somos pa</span>ísos,</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Of our world--</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Son valores shared</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">By all of us.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Yo felices ser a part of it.</span></span>Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-77650198337144553082016-06-23T13:27:00.000-07:002016-06-23T13:27:28.528-07:00A Man, His House, and an Extra-Dimensional Monster Named StanThere was a man who lived in a house,<br />
In this house with the man lived a mouse.<br />
<br />
This mouse was a big and brown,<br />
And when the man found him, his screams could be heard from the nearby town.<br />
<br />
But, fortunately for the man, it was only a mouse.<br />
A big, brown mouse that lived in his house.<br />
<br />
At least, that is what the man thought.<br />
For you see, there was another thing that fought<br />
<br />
For control of the house from the man.<br />
An extra-dimensional monster named Stan.<br />
<br />
This monster named Stan had a horrible plan<br />
To open a portal in the basement of the house of the man.<br />
<br />
From this portal the monster came through<br />
And in its wake, terror did ensue.<br />
<br />
Stan made its way up the stairs,<br />
Tentacles extended—to skin, flayers.<br />
<br />
It was in the living room that it found the man.<br />
And the house became occupied solely by StanJordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-15834114191089672972016-06-23T12:39:00.000-07:002016-06-23T12:39:21.985-07:00Gender and Suicide in Late Medieval EnglandJohn Tyler of Lincolnshire, on the 2nd of January 2016, while alone in his small apartment at night, decided to hang himself in the middle of his living room. He did this after a long battle with depression, wanting the pain that it caused to end. While it is awful that Mr. Tyler died in such a manner, his death, in our modern society, will cause no further harm to his family than the obvious emotional harm that is caused by the act itself. This would not have been the case if Mr. Tyler had killed himself in medieval England, for several hundred years prior, the act of suicide (otherwise known as self-killing) was considered a felony. If he had killed himself back in those times, Mr. Tyler's family would also have to deal with his <i>post humanous</i> trial for committing an act of self-killing. The punishment for this crime could be severe for his family, both economically, and then by means of damaging their reputation. This essay will explore self-killing in late medieval England, examining how it was viewed by both ecclesiastic and secular bodies. It will also aim to determine in what ways self-killing (and consequently, how it was dealt with by authorities) was gendered, both in the ratio in which women committed self-killings, and how they did so. Furthermore, it will look at the verdicts given by the juries of the time, comparing how they treated women and men in both cases of compassionate verdicts, and then in cases of harsh verdicts.<br />
<br />
As can be extrapolated from the introduction of this essay, suicide or self-killing was not viewed with a positive light in medieval England. It was, after all, considered a felony. Felonies were one of the two types of crimes that could be committed by a person (the other being a trespass, or what we now refer to as a misdemeanor). Unlike trespasses, which would be punished with fines or other forms of lesser punishment, felonies were punished through the execution of the individual, and the seizing of their land, goods, and chattel through a process known as the corruption of blood. Felonies were predominately homicides and greater thefts (grand larceny, robbery, burglary), but suicide was also viewed as a felony—called <i>felonia de se</i>, or felony of the self. This negative view of self-killing is rooted deeply in Christian ideology and religious tradition, being voiced well by the Fourth Century Saint Augustine of Hippo in his, Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans. In this work, Augustine paints an extremely clear picture that suicide is a great and heavy sin, and that it should not be committed, unless one is directed to do so by God, as is the case with many martyred saints. This Christian foundation of a taboo against self-killing served to influence the secular attitude toward the act. As previously mentioned above, being classified as a felony, the punishment for being found guilty of <i>felonia de se</i> was the seizing of all assets of the victim by the Crown. An additional punishment of being buried in unconsecrated land was also given to those who committed suicide, a punishment for the corruption of the soul that occurred due to the great sin that was brought upon the individual from committing such an evil act. Such is the punishment that was given for self-killing in medieval England, but that is only if a verdict of <i>felonia de se</i> is reached, which was not always the case.<br />
<br />
In addition to self-killings being ruled as <i>felonia de se</i>, there were two other rulings that could be given by a jury. Medieval juries could also find that an incident of self-killing was due to misadventure (essentially, that it was an accident), or that it was due to <i>non compos mentis</i> (meaning that they were not responsible for their actions by means of mental instability). More specifically, the reason someone who was mentally unstable could not be found (in theory) guilty of a crime was because “(1) he did not know what he did; (2) he was impelled or forced by some inexplicable necessity; or (3) he was not capable of reason--that is, he was not in charge of himself because he lacked the faculty of deliberation." If there was a verdict of misadventure or <i>non compos mentis</i>, then the self-killer would not have their land, goods, and chattel confiscated—nor would they be buried outside of the consecrated ground of a church—as they would not be guilty of a felony. More on actual figures of the numbers of self-killings deemed to be misadventures and excusable by <i>non compos mentis</i> later though. One interesting thing to note in this discussion of <i>felonia de se</i>, <i>non compos mentis</i>, and misadventure is that on multiple occasions, legal records show that self-killings were determined to be both the result of misadventure and yet at the same time <i>felonia de se</i>, or were both<i> non compos mentis</i> and <i>felonia de se</i>. This shows the difficulty that medieval juries had in distinguishing between the three types of self-killing, and the difficulty that they had determining the best verdict to hand-down, for reasons that will be discussed later. Now that a general foundation is established for how self-killing was viewed, and how it was treated both by secular authorities, and then by the ecclesiastic, we can now look at how suicide differed between men and women.<br />
<br />
In medieval England, the commission of crimes by women was disproportionately low in comparison with men, given the general equality in the numbers of men and women. This was especially true in regards to felonies. Overall for felonies—which include major theft, such as grand larceny, burglary, and robbery, as well as homicide and suicide—women made up for only ten percent of the total cases that came before courts (in one study, it was determined that women were responsible for only four percent of felonies). Now, this behooves historians to ask why this is the case. Certainly, it could be chalked up to some sort of biological determinism, in which women are inherently less violent than men. Or it could be that this disproportionate representation of women in felonious crimes is resultant of social conditioning of the time to make women more submissive and pacifistic. Both of these explanations are unsatisfactory though, as they would then mean that there would be similar rates of women committing criminal acts throughout history, which is not the case. Even during the time period, the East Midlands had rates of accusation of <i>felonia de se</i> that were roughly even between men and women, if not leaning toward more women committing the act. If we look at modern statistics in the United Kingdom, we can see that women made up twenty-four percent of criminal cases. Both of these numbers, then, work to discredit these hypotheses. It could be that, as medieval historian Sara M. Butler posits, that medieval juries were less likely to view women as suspects for felonious acts, seeing them incapable of doing such things as murder. This then also helps explain why women were able to get treatment that was both more compassionate then what was given to men, when compassion was shown, and that was at the same time harsher than what was given to men, when harsh judgments were given down, in the case of suicide verdicts. More on this below. I would argue that this belief that women are generally incapable of performing violent, felonious crime is still held by many today, and is at least partially responsible for the still disproportionate rates of crime between the sexes.<br />
<br />
As for suicide, the rate of women committing this felony is much higher than with any other type of felony. In looking at 718 incidents of self-killing in medieval England, between the Thirteenth and early Sixteenth Centuries, taking from the few surviving records that exist within coroner's, eyre, and assize rolls, we can see that of the 718 incidents of self-killing, 464 were committed by men, while 253 were committed by women (this adds up to 717 self-killings, with the remaining self-killer's gender being unidentified due to damage to the record). This means that women committed thirty-five percent of self-killings, which is a stark difference between the four to ten percent of felonies in general. As to why this is the case is uncertain, and Butler, whose figures I draw off of for this essay, does not seek to answer this question. I would hypothesize that it could be due to the nature of suicide as a crime as compared to homicide or theft. Suicide is, by its very nature, a crime that does not involve others, while theft and homicide do. It could be that because of this, and because of the lack of agency that women possessed at the time, that suicide was a crime that they were able to commit far easier than other types of felonies (especially if you consider that the majority of homicides at the time, specifically in urban areas, occurred as a result of altercations in pubs and taverns after copious amounts of alcohol had been consumed).<br />
<br />
Let us dive deeper down into the rabbit hole of conviction rates among male and female self-killers. Of the 718 cases of self-killing, 565 returned verdicts of <i>felonia de se</i> (or roughly seventy-nine percent, with seventy-four percent of women being found guilty, and eighty-one percent of men being found so). This is an extremely high conviction rate for a felony, as at the time, the average acquittal rate for felonies was at sixty-five percent. This indicates that medieval juries were especially harsh in punishing those who had committed suicide, perhaps due to the deep religious connotations that the act held. Some scholars have argued that the reason that so many verdicts of <i>felonia de se</i> were given was so that the Crown could seize the chattel, land, and goods of the offenders. This train of thought is derailed at two points, however. First, there is the issue of the high rate of acquittal (sixty-five percent) for other felonies, which would also result in the confiscation of chattel, lands, and goods to the Crown. It could be that juries were unwilling to give verdicts that took the life of an individual, and that since that was not a factor in cases of self-killing that they did not have any form of inhibition in declaring a felony occurred. However, there is still the family of the accused that must be taken into consideration, as they would most certainly suffer from the confiscation of said possessions. Suppose that is not a problem, though. In that case, you still have the issue, as Gwen and Alice Seabourne point out, that oftentimes those without any chattel, land, or goods were still found guilty of <i>felonia de se</i>, thus pointing toward a genuine desire to punish individuals that had self-killed. We can see this tendency to be harsh, to punish, in cases of mental instability as well.<br />
<br />
Mental instability was considered an excuse for committing felonious acts (<i>non compos mentis</i>), as the perpetrator did not have <i>mens rea</i>, or the criminal mind. Out of the 718 cases of self-killing, there were 105 cases in which mental instability was mentioned. Of these, forty-two percent were committed by women, and fifty-eight percent were committed by men. This rate of mental instability is incongruous with the rate at which women committed suicide as compared to men (thirty-five percent of the total self-killings). This indicates that medieval juries were willing to believe that a woman could be mentally unstable at a greater degree then they ought to for their percentage of the overall amount of self-killings. It is difficult to discern as to why this is the case, though it could be do to the association between the Devil and women by the Medieval Church, and its promulgation of the idea that women could be more easily possessed by the Devil, demons, evil spirits, etc.. This can be seen with cases involving demonic possession or influence, of which there were fourteen. Of these fourteen, nine were by women, and five were by men. Sixty-six percent of the women were given a verdict of <i>felonia de se</i>, as opposed to just twenty percent of the men. Now, of those 105 cases of mental instability, sixty-three of them resulted in the defendant being awarded a verdict of <i>non compos mentis</i> (twenty-seven women, or eleven percent of all women, and thirty-six men, or eight percent of all men). This shows that medieval juries were willing to believe that women were mentally unstable, and thus not responsible for their actions, than they were for men.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of difference in gender and self-killing in late medieval England is in instances of “phrases of afforcement.” These were phrases that were used by coroners and by grand juries in order to prevent the trial jury from showing compassion to the self-killer, by using phrases such as “at night,” “ murder,” “with malice aforethought,” “behind closed doors,” and “alone.” In the highly social time, these phrases all served to paint the self-killer in such a negative light as to make it next-to impossible for the trial jury to show compassion for them. Of the 718 self-killings, forty of them contained phrases of afforcement, and of those forty, eighteen of them, or roughly half, were in cases involving women. This shows a clear bias towards women. In addition to breaking social norms by self-killing, it could be that the reason that women were given phrases of afforcement is that women were, by committing such a violent felony, also breaking the social expectations and gender roles that are assigned to women, such as McLane believes. An example of this can be seen in the case of Joan Wynspere of Basford, who, in an attempt to abort a pregnancy with pharmaceuticals, accidentally ended up killing herself. In this case, Joan was found guilty of <i>felonia de se</i>. This contradicted the precedent, in which she would have been found guilty of abortion, and not of <i>felonia de se</i>, as her death was not intended. Butler believes, however, that this is a case in which male jurors were showing their antipathy toward “loose women,” illegitimate pregnancies, and illicit abortions. It could also have to do with her status as a single woman.<br />
<br />
To be a single woman in medieval England was to be in a minority, and it was often looked down on by society. In addition, being a single woman also brought with it financial instability, as work was, to put it lightly, limited for women. This, along with the social condemnation that came with being a single woman, might explain why single women were disproportionately represented among self-killing women. Of the 253 women who self-killed, fifty-four percent were married, while forty-seven percent were not. However, those figures do not account for widows, who were included in the married category. Accounting for them, sixty-five percent of female self-killers were single. It also is important to note then that single women fared worse than married women.<br />
<br />
Up until now, we have been looking at cases in which medieval juries were harsh to the accused self-killers. While this harsh treatment did account for seventy-nine percent of the incidents of self-killing, there is still another twenty-one percent that needs to be accounted for. These are the cases in which medieval juries showed compassion for the accused self-killers. Take, for example, the case of Ellen wife of Thomas the clerk of Barnwell, who awoke one night, rose from bed in nothing but her underwear, and then proceeded to walk into the nearby river and drown herself out of grief for her son that she had recently lost. The record shows that she simply drowned herself, but not that she was a felon. This case shows sympathy that medieval juries had for those women who had lost their children (which happened quite often, with high mortality rates existing for children at the time). It also showed that the jury had sympathy for her husband Thomas, who had just lost his son and wife, as a verdict of <i>felonia de se</i> would ruin his reputation. This compassion can also be seen with postpartum depression, which it is clear, through writings that we have from the time, that they understood. Enough of anecdotes though, let us look at raw numbers. In the case of thirty self-killings by hanging, medieval juries returned verdicts of misadventure. Now, this does not make sense if the juries were giving an accurate verdict, as one does not accidentally fall into the hangman's noose. An appropriate judgment would be<i> felonia de se</i> or <i>non compos mentis</i>. However, both of these verdicts would serve to damage either the reputation and/or the financial situation of the families that survived the self-killers. Thus, death by misadventure makes sense as a compassionate verdict. Interestingly, this compassion was gender-neutral, with fifteen men and fifteen women being granted a misadventure verdict.<br />
<br />
These were not the only ways in which medieval juries graced self-killers with compassion. In 103 of verdicts of <i>felonia de se</i>, the trial jury under-appreciated the value of the chattel, lands, and goods of the guilty. In seventy-seven of these cases, the self-killer was a man. It seems that, in this, juries were attempting to be sympathetic to the wives and children of self-killers. This could be due simply to empathy and sympathy on the part of the jurors, or it could also be due to a worry that by taking all of the chattel, lands, and goods of the man of a household, that they would condemn his family to destitution, and therefore create a drain on the community. Similar concerns were had when females self-killed, and the taking of joint-property from the husband.<br />
<br />
The last element that needs to be examined in regards to self-killing is the ways in which men and women killed themselves. Thirty-four percent of women drowned themselves, as opposed to twenty-nine percent of men. Fifty-one percent of women hanged themselves, as opposed to forty-one percent of men. Eight percent of women used a sharp tool to kill themselves, as opposed to twenty-two percent of men. It is this last figure that is of great interest in determining how men and women killed themselves in different ways. For, killing oneself with a sharp object, such as a knife, is a long, and arduous process—much longer than a death by hanging or by drowning. Moreover, the use of sharp objects to kill themselves shows a trend that men have for the use of dramatic forms of killing themselves. Take for example the case of John the Welshman of Lincolnshire, who used a knife to remove both his penis and testicles before leaving himself to bleed to death. Or the case of Thomas Nulleward, who threw himself into the cogs of a mill, crushing him. Or the case of Thomas Warner of Moulton, who died of drowning after first tying his hands and feet together. All of these are cases in which men killed themselves in far more dramatic manners than women, and serve as a representative of a larger trend of dramatic self-killing for men.<br />
<br />
The loss of a life prematurely is an awful thing, moreso when it is done by oneself. While suicide is no longer illegal in England, during the medieval era, it was, due to a foundation of suicide being a taboo by the Catholic Church, especially in the writings of Saint Augustine of Hippo. Called <i>felonia de se</i>, committing suicide would result in the seizing of goods, lands, and chattel by the Crown, and would ultimately serve to bring the family of the individual who committed suicide into destitution, while also ruining their reputation. There were exceptions and excuses for committing an act of self-killing, those being death by misadventure (accidental) and those which were<i> non compos menti</i>, or rather, where the individual who killed themselves was not in the right mind when they did so. However, juries were harsh when it came to suicide, having a twenty-one percent acquittal rate, as opposed to sixty-five percent for most felonies. Suicide was also gendered in nature, and disproportionately so. On aggregate, women committed ten percent of felonies, and yet they committed thirty-five percent of the suicides, even though they made up half of the population. While there are many hypotheses as to why this is, it seems that this is due to a lack of belief that women were capable of committing such crimes, and then a lack of desire to convict them. After all, seventy-four percent of women accused of self-killing were found guilty, as opposed to eighty-one percent of men. In addition, more women were excused of their self-killing by reason of mental instability than men were (that being by percentage of those excused to the percentage of the whole of the group). Women were disproportionately singled out and given harsher treatment than men through phrases of afforcement. Single women were treated harsher than those who were married. At the same time though, women were generally shown more compassion by juries, especially in regards to mental instability. Finally, men were more dramatic in their suicides than women were. Such is how suicide was treated in medieval England and how it was gendered both in favor, and against, women.<br />
<br />
Bibliography<br />
<br />
Alice Seabourne and Gwen Seabourne,"Law on Suicide in Medieval England, The."Journal of Legal <i>History</i> 21.1 (2000): 21-48. Web. 24 June 2016.<br />
<br />
Augustine. Translated by Henry Bettenson. <i>Concerning the City of God Against the Pagans. </i>Pelican Books: Great Britain. 1997.<br />
<br />
Carl I. Hammer, Jr. “Patterns of Homicide in a Medieval University Town: Fourteenth Century Oxford.”<i> Past & Present</i>. 78. 3-23. 1978. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Print.<br />
<br />
Ministry of Justice. “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2011.” Women and the Criminal Justice System. United Kingdom. 2012. Web. 24 June 2016.<br />
<br />
Rebecca F. McNamara and Juanita Feros Ruys “Unlocking the Silences of the self-murdered” <i>Exemplora</i> 26:1. 2014. Web. 24 June 2016.<br />
<br />
Richard J. Sims. “Secondary Offenders? English Women and Crime, c. 1220-1348” in<i> Early Modern Women: Victims or Viragos?</i> Edited by Chrstine Meek and Catherine Lawless. Four Courts Press. 2005. Print.<br />
<br />
Sara M. Butler. “Cultures of Suicide?: Suicide Verdicts and the Community in Thirteenth-and Fourteenth-Century England.”<i>The Historian</i> 69:3. 427-449. 2007. Web. 24 June 2016.<br />
<br />
Sara M. Butler. "Degrees of Culpability: Suicide Verdicts, Mercy, and the Jury in Medieval England." <i>Journal Of Medieval & Early Modern Studies.</i> 36:2. (Spring 2006): 263-290. Web. 24 June 2016.<br />
<br />
Sara M. Butler, "Women, Suicide, and the Jury in Later Medieval England," <i>Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society</i>. 32:1 (Autumn 2006). Web. 24 June 2016.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-12194807292340663252016-06-14T06:15:00.001-07:002016-06-14T06:15:13.014-07:00What Was Hobbes' Idea of the State?Preface: I feel as though this essay got away from while I was writing it. The idea of the state that Hobbes posits is an extensive one, and I had but 2000 words to summize his thoughts. So I suppose what I am trying to say is that you should take the following essay as an incomplete, a scratch on the surface of the beliefs of Hobbes.<br />
<br />
The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries marked a tumultuous period in the history of Europe. There were wars of conquest, with the expansion of the proto-imperialist states of the time. There were wars of religion, both between different religious groups, as with the Hasburgs and the Ottomans, and within Christendom, with the Protestant Reformation. Then, there were the wars of a state against itself—both for religious reasons, as in France with the Wars of Religion fought between the Huguenots and the Catholics, and for the resistance of “tyrannical” regimes, as was the case with the mid-Seventeenth Century English Civil War between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians. These internal struggles, both in France and across the Channel in England, served as a point of interest for political theorists of the time. Of particular interest to these theorists was the idea of the state, sovereignty, the role of subjects to the sovereign authority, and then whether or not resistance to a sovereign authority was justified in a legal and philosophical sense. Now, this is not the first time that political philosophers had contemplated these thoughts, as both Aristotle and Cicero wrote extensively on the subject. With Cicero, there was a focus on the duty of people to the commonwealth, and then the duty of citizens to remove a tyrant from power. This was then taken by Jean Bodin, who for the first time defined the concept of sovereignty. More famous than the Frenchman, though, was the British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes, author of Leviathan. It is the aim of this essay to explore the idea of the state as set out by Hobbes in Leviathan.<br />
<br />
According to Hobbes, there is a Leviathan in this world, and it is called the Commonwealth. It would be easy for one to think, upon reading that in the introduction to the book that its subject is then the commonwealth. This is only partially true. To Hobbes, because the commonwealth is a grouping of all of the people of the state together, one must first understand the inner-workings of men to understand the inner-workings of the state. In particular, one must understand what drives men to do what they do; the nature of men in the world as set out by God; and the different kinds of persons that exist in the world. To begin, let us examine that which compels men to act. In this, Hobbes has a simple explanation. According to him, man is controlled by his passions. We as a species seek to fulfill whatever passions that we have, given that they are obtainable with our strength and position in the world, with our lives being just a long string of passions, linked together with ever success or failure in the completion of them. Ultimately though, while we strive to fulfill the passions that are presently held, it is more important for us to ensure that there will be future desires that can be fulfilled. This, to Hobbes, is the object of man. It is both a Christian, and a determinist way of looking at the world, as the vision that Hobbes paints is one in which everything only happens because of a cause, except the one thing that does not have a cause—that one thing being God (an line of thought in-line with Aquinas)6. At the same time though, while agreeing in part with the thinking of classic Christian philosophers, he disagrees with the thinking of classical philosophers, with him believing that there is no such thing as a “greatest good.”7. It is through the desire for ease in life, and the fear of pain and death, then, that compel Man to civil obedience.<br />
<br />
Now understanding that man is driven by passion, and how that relates the commonwealth (through the civil obedience that is required for a society to operate effectively), we can examine the state of nature that man has been put in by God. According to Hobbes, all of man is created by God as equal in both body and mind. Even though when comparing individuals there will be those who are stronger and wiser than others, on the aggregate, people are equal. This equality of conditions then creates a scenario where, due to the scarce resources that exist in this world, conflict arises when two or more people with the same desire compete for the same scarce resource, and since they both are equal in conditions, they both have equal claim to this scarce resource. This creates a pattern of violence and distrust in others, which ultimately creates a state of war—a state in which everyone is pitted against everyone else, ultimately trying to assert their dominion over everyone else, in order to ensure their security. Thus, war is not battle between parties, but rather a state in which battle between parties is likely to occur. This state of war degrades the greatness of Humanity, doing away with the culture and knowledge that is gained through peace, or the time without war. When in this state of war, there is not sovereign authority—there is no commonwealth, no state. Because of this, Hobbes posits, there can be no injustice in the state of war, as injustice comes from the violation of civil law, and during a state of war, there is no civil law that people are subject to. Through the fear of death and the love of ease, man is then also compelled to seek out an end to the state of war. This is the completely reasonable and inevitable conclusion for man to come to, according to Hobbes, both due to the passions that bind men, but then also do to the laws of nature that rule over all things.<br />
<br />
The laws of nature that Hobbes prescribes govern the world, and through it, the interactions that men have with it and each other, are quite extensive. For the sake of brevity, this essay will not cover all of the laws of nature that he posits. Now, according to Hobbes, the Laws of Nature (Lex Naturalis), are general rules that are found by the use of reason of what man is forbidden or bound to do. This idea that there are laws of nature divined by man through reason is by no means unique to Hobbes, and it is routed in previous Christian thinkers, such as Aquinas and Augustine. The first law of nature, what Hobbes refers to as the “fundamentall [sic]” law of nature, is that man, by nature, will seek peace. The reasoning for this can be seen in the paragraph preceding this one. It is the belief of Hobbes that the best way to set out on this path to peace is through the use of contracts (and covenants, which are the parts of a contract that one of the parties is bound to). A contract is, in this case, the “mutuall transferring of Right [sic].”. The transferring of right, is done to create bonds between men, and to ensure peace through fear of repercussion for the breaking of ones covenant, both from some greater temporal power (here being the commonwealth) and from the ultimate judge—God. Now, transferring of ones rights is a voluntary action, and since it is a voluntary action, it is only done if it is in the interests of the individual, as we are inherently self-interested. Hobbes posits that it is in the interest of individuals to give up some rights in order to secure their safety, and thus, greater rights in the end. These rights are then given to the commonwealth.<br />
<br />
At last, we have reached the point in which the commonwealth enters into the fold of Hobbes' political thought. As previously stated, the commonwealth is created by the transferring of the rights of individuals within a state to the state for their mutual benefit. This, the common good, is what the commonwealth seeks to protect and increase, through the establishment of laws, and the upholding of contracts. Now, commonwealths can be implemented through two main ways—either through institution or though acquisition. Both are quite simple, although there has been contention on his explanation of the commonwealth by acquisition, and in particular, by conquest. First though, there is the commonwealth by institution. In this, the commonwealth is created simply by the consent of the major part of the persons who are present to transfer their rights, and the rights of all who are under the dominion of the commonwealth, thus bestowing upon the commonwealth sovereign power, which then lies in the hands of the sovereign (more on this later). There is also then the commonwealth by acquisition. In this, the commonwealth is acquired through the use of force—most often, conquest. This, to Hobbes, is a legitimate government, and is due the same obedience as the commonwealth that is instituted. This is an important point, as the English Civil War was based, in a large part, off of the idea that the rule of the English monarchs was illegitimate, as it was achieved through force. They used this to justify resistance to the crown. Hobbes thinks this is unjustified, as, to him, the implementation of a commonwealth also implements a covenant on the part of the subjects to not resist the commonwealth, as any contract does. In addition, Hobbes believed that a commonwealth by acquisition was created through the voluntary transfer of the rights of a people to the conqueror. This is because, in Hobbes' mind, when a commonwealth is conquered, it ceases to be, and thus, with no obligations, people have the ability to do as they will. They could very well not submit to a conqueror, but they would have to face the consequences of non-submission. To Hobbes, the threat of violence, or fear of violence does not make an action involuntary. Hobbes also believed in the idea that there are actors and authors for all of the things that are done by man. In this, actors perform acts, but authors are the ones who come up with them, and then authorize actors (being their representatives) to perform them. Because the sovereign authority is a representative of the people, it is but an actor, with the people of the commonwealth being the authors. To resist the sovereign authority then would be to fight against oneself. This is the other reason that Hobbes is against the resistance of people against the state—taking an even more extreme stance on the issue than Jean Bodin.<br />
<br />
In regards to liberty, I will say but a few short words. First, to Hobbes, liberty was not a thing that one possessed—but rather, it was the absence of external forces that stopped one's movement in the world (or, if you will, inhibit their rights)31. The liberties that a person has within a state, according to Hobbes, are those things that the law is silent on. However, there are certain liberties (rights) that cannot be transferred away, which are the right to defend oneself, the right to not accuse oneself, and then the right not to injure oneself.<br />
<br />
When discussing the grim philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, there is a great deal to discuss. In Leviathan, Hobbes lays out his idea of the state, or as he so affectionately refers to it, the Leviathan. This commonwealth that he lays out is formed by the transferring of the rights of individuals who exist under its domain in order to avoid the state of war that otherwise exists in the absence of the commonwealth. This transfer of rights is a rational one, based off of the desires that men have—specifically the love of ease, and the fear of pain and death. By transferring these rights and creating a commonwealth, people bestow upon it sovereign power, that is then used by the Sovereign to rule over and for the people—hopefully in the interest of the common good. By linking this creation of the commonwealth to the establishment of a covenant, and then further by positing that the people are the authors of the Sovereign's actions, Hobbes uses his Leviathan to argue against the belief in just resistance that was held by Parliamentarians in the English Civil War. While there is certainly much more to say in regards to Hobbes' idea of the state, this is, in brief, the idea of the state that Hobbes lays out in his Leviathan.<br />
<br />
<br />
Bibliography<br />
<br />
Aquinas. Edited by R.W. Dyson. Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002. Print.<br />
<br />
Bodin, Jean. On Sovereignty. Edited and translated by Julian H. Franklin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992. Print.<br />
<br />
Cicero. Edited by M.T. Griffin and E.M. Atkins. On Duties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991. Print.<br />
<br />
Hobbes, Thomas Leviathan. Edited by Richard Tuck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996. Print.<br />
<br />
Skinner, Quentin. Visions of Politics: Volume III: Hobbes and Civil Service. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002. Print.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-55335350058393269982016-06-10T10:09:00.000-07:002016-06-10T10:09:24.142-07:00On the banning of hate speechThere is an adage in English that I am sure most of you know. It goes like this, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” The intention of this is to help teach children to refrain from physical violence after being taunted or in some other way angered. It is reported to have first appeared in 1862, in a book published by the African Methodist Episcopalian Church. This occurred, of course, due to the horrible racism that was present, and is still present today in many parts of our society. But that is not why I am writing this. What I want to talk about is hate speech. This was prompted by a conversation that I had with someone today, who, like many others do, believes that hate speech should be banned, and while I agree with all of them sentimentally, I find this an inherently problematic view to take. I hope to make why I believe this evident in this piece.<br />
<br />
I think that we can all agree that hate speech is abhorrent. Hate speech, according to the American Bar Association, is defined as speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits. Should it be discouraged? Yes! Absolutely, one-hundred percent, unequivocally, yes! However, by looking at this definition, I hope that you can see some of the problems that occur when we talk about banning hate speech.<br />
<br />
Now, there are a few things to clear up when we are talking about hate speech. First, speech that is directed towards an individual, that is meant to or likely to provoke them, is not hate speech. That is speech that is inciting violence, and it is illegal. This limitation on freedom of speech was decided in 1942 by the Supreme Court, and it is known as the Fighting Words Doctrine. People do have to right to say things that the listener disagrees with and that they find offensive and hateful. This is because of several reasons, which I will be covering shortly.<br />
<br />
Limitations on freedom of speech is not limited to the Fighting Words Doctrine, I might add. There are also limitations to speech for speech that is not directed at an individual, but that is conductive to creating disorder, violence, or harm to a person or a group of people. The classic example of this is yelling “FIRE!” in a movie theater. People are likely to get hurt as a result of this speech, and therefore, it is limited. This also applies to a person instructing others to in any way harm another individual, or a group of people.<br />
<br />
Here, we see the distinction starting to occur. I am sure you have all heard the phrase, “actions speak louder than words?” Well, it is true—especially here. Saying a racial or sexist epithet, or some other sort of derogatory statement is reprehensible. It is disgusting. But, the question is this: does that do tangible harm? Remember, we are not talking about fighting words, we are talking about more general hate speech. Since the speech in this case is not inciting violence or other illegal activity, it must be allowed. For this, I will look to JS Mill, a political theorist who wrote extensively on the topic of liberty.<br />
<br />
“If all of mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”<br />
<br />
The reason for this line of thinking is simple, and it is derived from a point that Mill makes earlier, which is that the sole reason that government should interfere with the lives of individuals in a society (by this, I mean limit their liberties), is for self-protection of either the individual, another individual, a group of people, or the society as a whole. Civil liberties are a fundamental right of all people, which is why they should not be infringed upon unless absolutely necessary. Being under common law, precedent is key. The limitation of hate speech could later be used to justify the banning of other forms of speech. I would like to turn back to Mill though.<br />
<br />
In addition to the argument about restricting liberties, there is also the argument that is made by Mill that one of the most important things that exists in the dialogue that society has about ideas and opinions. In this, there is no such thing as an opinion or belief that is not valuable. Even the most horrible of beliefs have value, at the very least, in being an opportunity to teach, and to correct an opinion; or to act as a check to the tyranny that exists when thoughts and ideas cannot be questioned, regardless of how good they may appear to be.<br />
<br />
Having covered those points in the banning of hate speech, I would next like to move on to the practicality of banning it, or rather, problems that will be had with legislating this proposed ban. One of two scenarios will occur.<br />
<br />
The first is the scenario in which the legislation around the banning of hate speech is extremely specific. In this scenario, there are extremely specific phrases and words that are banned. This is problematic for two reasons. First, there is the issue of it not being comprehensive enough. In this scenario, it is likely that certain aspects of hate speech will be looked over, or forgotten. In addition, it is likely that those who use hate speech will adapt to the changes, and in turn, new phrases will become hateful. In this sense, like technology, hate speech will outpace the law. There is also the issue here of the banning specific phrases and words defining what constitutes hate and hate speech. Say that, for example, many phrases and words that are derogatory to blacks, Latinos, and women are banned. This still leaves open hate directed at Asians, Caucasians, Men, people with disabilities, etc. Essentially, by banning hate speech in this way, we are implicitly condoning the forms of hate speech that is not being expressly banned. Or, if it is not condoning those forms of hate speech, it is most certainly a microcosm that is allowed continued existence and flourishing. This surely is not the answer.<br />
<br />
The second scenario is one in which the legislation around the banning of hate speech is extremely vague. In this scenario, “hate speech” is banned. This is problematic mostly because of how open to interpretation this statute would be, due to how vague it would be. In this scenario, if someone exclaimed, “I hate Mexicans!” for example, would that be hate speech? Would “Mexicans are bad! They are stealing our jobs!” be hate speech? Would “I don't like black people,” be considered hate speech? How about, “God, this old person is so fucking slow. I hate them so much.” ? I think we can generally agree that these are awful things to say, but are they hate speech? Should people be explicitly banned from saying these things? Another thing to consider. Say that you have a person who arrested for hate speech, and the situation is brought to court. Now, say that this area is one that is racist, and most of the people on the jury agree with the person who is being charged with hate speech. In this case, the chances the person charged will be found guilty is small. This is called jury nullification, and it was used in the South to let people guilty of lynching walk free. Of course, if most people in the area shared a general sentiment like that, there is also the possibility that a person saying hate speech would not be arrested in the first place, because the definition under the law would be vague enough that the police officer would have enough leeway to say that in fact an incident of hate speech did not occur. This also happened in the South during the days of slavery.<br />
<br />
These are some of the reasons why the banning of hate speech is problematic. While we do need to do everything as individuals, and as a society within our power to discourage hate speech, and hate in general, in any form in which it may manifest itself, we must always bare in mind civil liberties. Essentially, we need to combine the libertarian and the communitarian perspectives. We need to at a governmental level allow for the freedom on speech that everyone is entitled to for being a member of society, while at the same time at a social level work to eradicate the use of hate speech from our society.Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-6608258734241977212016-06-07T06:39:00.001-07:002016-06-07T06:39:39.756-07:00What was Bodin's Theory of Sovereignty?Disclaimer: This essay is in no way a complete realization of the theory of sovereignty of Bodin. While I would love to go on to better explain his ideas, this is an essay that I wrote for a political theory tutorial at Oxford, and alas, I was limited in the word count that I was allotted. Even in surpassing that limit, which I did, I could not cover all what I would have liked to in this essay. Keeping that in mind, enjoy.<br />
<br />
In the mid to late Sixteenth Century, the Kingdom of France was in a state of turmoil. The Protestant Reformation had taken root in Northern Europe, and it was spreading to France. King Henry II worked to suppress this growing religious minority (known as the Huguenots), but was unsuccessful in doing so. Upon his death, the crown passed onto his son, Francis II, who ruled for a measly eighteen months, seeing increased rebellious attitudes in the growing Protestant minority and the loss of the Auld Alliance, before his untimely death to disease. Francis II was succeeded by his brother Charles IX, and his regent queen-mother, Catherine de Medici. It was under Catherine that the first of the French Wars of Religion broke out between the Huguenots and the Catholics—with Catherine wanting to suppress the rebellious nature of the Protestants, but still seeking a policy of toleration, until after many years, she ordered the mass murder of thousands of Huguenots, after a failed assassination attempt at their leader. Stepping back though, the conflict between the Huguenots and the Catholics led to a series of political debates between the Constitutionalists (primarily Huguenots), who argued for limits on the sovereignty of the monarchy and for religious toleration, and the Royalists (primarily Catholics), who argued for the sovereignty of the monarchy. In this debate, there is one political philosopher that stands out as special among the others, and that is Jean Bodin. Bodin was a moderate Catholic, who while originally a Constitutionalist, trained in Roman law jurisprudence, made the about-face turn to absolutism—which was at the time, very much against the precedent of traditional medieval jurisprudence. In his salient work on the matter, Six Books of the Commonwealth, Bodin establishes a theory of sovereignty in the absolutist sense. It is important to know that the theory set out in the Six Books is in direct response to the political debate of the time between the Huguenots and the Catholics. It is the aim of this essay to explore that theory of sovereignty.<br />
<br />
To begin, it would be prudent to understand just what is meant by sovereignty in the mind of Bodin. To him, sovereignty is the absolute, supreme, and perpetual power of a commonwealth to act and rule over their territory. Let us dissect what that means. First, there is the idea that sovereign power must be absolute. There are many reasons for this, and they will be covered in full later on in the essay. Of interest here is the relation between the absolute nature of sovereign power and the perpetual nature of that power. The relation is quite simply, really. Absolute power by definition, must not be subservient to any other power (though, as we will see, this is not entirely true), and so, in order for this to occur, it cannot be limited by time. For, if it was limited by time, it would not be absolute. However, this does not mean that laws, once established by a sovereign authority, are untouchable, far from it. But more on this later.<br />
<br />
In order for sovereignty to exist, the most important thing that must be is that the sovereign authority must have absolute power. In this, Bodin means that the sovereign authority must be exempt from all civil, or human, laws—a concept otherwise known as <i>legibus solutus</i>. This exemption from civil law thus gives the sovereign authority the ability to properly legislate in accordance to the natural and divine laws that govern all living things, which Bodin believes that sovereign authorities must govern in accordance with. This idea is both radical in one sense, and in the other sense, conforming with medieval jurisprudence. In medieval jurisprudence, there was not agreement as to whether or not the sovereign authority (chiefly monarchs), should have the liberty given to them in <i>legibus solutus</i>, with many of the medieval kingdoms granting only extremely specific rights of sovereignty to the ruling monarch. At the same time, there was established in medieval jurisprudence the idea that all laws are subject to the natural and divine laws of the world—an idea laid out fully in the works of St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas. This subservient role of all to both natural and divine law, then, serves as the only real anti-absolutism of Bodin.<br />
<br />
Bodin, in establishing what makes a sovereign authority, discusses the need of their power to be perpetual. This, as previously mentioned, does not mean that the laws that are enacted by sovereign authorities will last forever, far from it. Rather, the laws enacted by sovereigns will last as long as their lives do, with the sovereign authority that replaces them deciding on whether or not to keep that laws that preexisted their reign. In deciding on which laws to keep, and which to do away with, the sovereign authority should keep those which benefit the public, as it is the role of the sovereign authority to look after the commonwealth, as described in natural law. The reason that new sovereign authorities are able to readily ignore the laws of the previous sovereign authorities is because of the previously mentioned <i>legibus solutus</i>, which stems from the idea of absolute power. The concept of <i>legibus solutus</i> is already well established, and all law made by man is civil law, and therefore the sovereign authority is not subject to it. However, there are two points related to this that require further discussion—those being the difference between sovereign authorities and those entrusted with sovereign power temporarily, and then the oddity that is contracts.<br />
<br />
Let us first look at how the sovereign authority is distinguished from those entrusted with sovereign power. In this, Bodin is primarily discussing these roles in their relation to a monarchical form of government, though this distinction that he makes still works when applied to aristocratic and democratic forms of government (more on these later). In making the distinction between the two types of people, Bodin posits that if the power of an individual or group of persons is limited in any manner—whether that be in the realm of time, or in terms of form or function—that they are not in fact sovereign, even if they can with aspects of sovereign power. They are what Bodin calls a trustee of sovereignty. The reason that they are trustees rather than sovereign authorities in their own right is that by being limited, they lack the absolute power that is required for sovereignty. Bodin also states that if power is granted to an individual or a group of persons by another group—whether it be a monarch by appointment, or the entirety of the people through an election—that they are not sovereign, but again, trustees. This is because the power of the sovereign must not come from others granting it to you, as that would mean that they in fact have power over you. There is a difference though, in the people granting you their sovereign power as a trustee, and then the people surrendering their sovereign power to you as the sovereign authority—that being that once the sovereign authority of the people is surrendered, it does not return to them. This distinction between the sovereign authority and those who are trustees of sovereign power works well and good in a monarchy, as the distinction is clear. The monarch holds the sovereign power, and gives it to certain ministers and magistrates below him to deal with the micromanaging of their realm. Who then hold sovereignty in the realms of aristocracies and democracies? It is quite simple, really. In aristocracies, the aristocracy is sovereign, and in democracies, the people as a collective are sovereign—though individuals can hold no claim to sovereignty. These are then the ways that sovereignty can present itself in government. At the time, many argued that there are other forms of mixed governments, or governments that combine two or more of the forms of government stated above, as well as corruptions upon these forms of government. While this essay will not explore this aspect of Bodin's work, suffice it to say that he does an extremely good job at dismantling these arguments, and showing how in all of the so called “mixed” forms of government, there really is only aristocracy, democracy, or monarchy. <br />
<br />
Now, going back to the idea of <i>legibus solutus</i>. This idea, while exempting the sovereign from the authority of civil law, does not exempt them from the authority of contracts. This may appear to be a contradiction to the absolute nature of the sovereign's authority, but it is in fact not. The role of the sovereign, and of any government, is to maintain the health and welfare of the commonwealth. One of the most crucial aspects of maintaining the welfare of the commonwealth is the enforcement of contracts. Without the enforcement of contracts, there is no guarantee that trade will be fair, and thus, it creates unrest with people not being able to trust each other. Thus, as the absolute and supreme leader of the government, and of the state, the sovereign must fulfill his contracts, so as to not allow for there to be doubt in their, or through them, the government's, guarantee of contracts. Contracts, and the keeping of them, also falls into the realm of natural law, which even sovereigns must follow. Thus, the needing to uphold contracts by sovereigns is twofold.<br />
<br />
In addition to what has already been said on sovereignty, Bodin also laws out certain rights of the sovereign (which he refers to as marks). All of these rights come from the main right of the sovereign to make civil law. However, since the connections between that right and the other rights can be at time unclear, Bodin goes on to explain the greater of these marks, and how they tie back to the original, prime mark of sovereignty. I will identify those marks in this essay as well, for the sake of the reader, though a more in-depth analysis will not be had. Among secondary marks of sovereignty given by Bodin are: the ability to wage war and to make peace; the ability to establish the offices of principle magistrates; the right to final appeal or last judgment (this judicial right, it is important to note, was much more robust in medieval jurisprudence, with sovereigns serving in more of a judiciary role than a legislative one); the right to grant pardons and reprieves; the right to fealty and liege homage; the right of coining money; the right to regulate weights and measurements; the right to direct and indirect taxation; the right to the sea; the right to take the property of traitors; the right to enforce a common language; the right to judge in accordance to conscious; and the title of majesty, to name but a few. It is through these marks and the aforementioned absolute and perpetual power that sovereignty is outlined and defined by Bodin.<br />
<br />
Writing during the tumultuous French Wars of Religion, the French political philosopher Jean Bodin served as a crucial and influential thinker of the time. He wrote in response to the Huguenots, who argued in favor of limits on the sovereignty of the French Monarchy, and in favor of active resistance against a tyrannical sovereign. In his response (encompassed in the Six Books on the Commonwealth), Bodin makes an argument for the absolute power of the sovereignty, especially in the case of a monarchy, which he viewed as the best of the three available forms of government. He also argued that there is no legitimacy in resistance to a legitimate sovereign authority, even if said authority acts in a manner that is wicked. Opposing them, no matter how vile their actions, is treason of the highest form, for it promotes a state of anarchy in the commonwealth. Bodin also included a set of “marks,” or rights, of sovereignty, all stemming from the absolute power of the sovereign and the role of the sovereign as the creator of civil law. This all together then, is the theory of sovereignty that is posited by Jean Bodin.<br />
<br />
Bibliography<br />
<br />
Bodin, Jean. <i>On Sovereignty</i>. Edited and translated by Julian H. Franklin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992. Print.<br />
<br />
Giesey, Ralph E. “Medieval Jurisprudence in Bodin's Concept of Sovereignty” in H. Denzer's <i>Jean Bodin</i>. Trans. By J.H. Franklin. Cambridge. 1992.<br />
<br />
Skinner, Quentin. <i>The Foundations of Modern Political Thought Vol. 2. The Age of Reformation.</i> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1978.Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-45346845512954261802016-06-05T10:12:00.000-07:002016-06-05T10:12:44.031-07:00Why Does Marx Believe that Capitalism will be Overthrown by a Proletarian Revolution?<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The Nineteenth Century was a period of great change. Over the continent of Europe, a series of revolutions took place that would forever alter the political makeup of the continent, and the world as whole. These revolutions were the center of discussion (either directly or tangentially) for many of the political theorists of the day, including those such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Jeremy Bentham, and, of course, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Perhaps the most influential among the political theorists of the era, if not in history, Marx and Engels were known best for their The Manifesto of the Communist Party. In this work, Marx and Engels laid out the history of the world through the lens of materialism; how this history was reflected in the state of the world and socioeconomic classes of the time; the goal of the Communist Party; and how they saw the eventual end of the then-current Bourgeois Capitalistic system would occur. It is the goal of this essay to examine how Marx believed that the Bourgeois Capitalistic system would fall, through a Proletarian revolution, working off of The Communist Manifesto, John Plamenatz's Man and Soceity, and David McLellan's The Thought of Karl Marx; with consultation of Gareth Stedman Jones' introduction to The Communist Manifesto and Sheldon Wolin's Politics and Vision.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>According to Marx, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” This history is seen through the relations between master and slave throughout history. It is seen between those of feudal power, and the serfs that served under them. In the time of Marx, and from then onward to the present day, it can be seen between the rich and the poor—between the capitalist Bourgeoisie and the working proletariat. It is, according to Marx, through the system of production that a society has that the general character of the social life between the classes can be determined. In earlier times, this was satisfied through the labor of slaves for mass, unskilled projects; and then the work of guilds—of expert artisans and journeymen apprentices. With the Industrial Revolution, and with the rise of the Bourgeoisie, this all changed. However, while over the course of history, the balance of the classes has always shifted, there has always been one constant—and that is that inherent in all societies with class is inequality. For, whenever a class is able to rise up against the preexisting ruling class, they have always then taken the reigns of power from that class, and asserted their own minority dominance over society. Not only does this inequality exist within the economic realm—where it is a reality that cannot be glossed over—but it also exists in the social realm with differences in the amount of respect that people have for the different roles that people in society play (in this, Plamenatz, in his analysis of Marx, is referring to the amount of respect that individuals can command due to work that they do that gives them increased amounts of rights and obligations, such as the work of a doctor or a lawyer)5. The heart of all of this exploitation lies with the possession of capital. Having taken a brief look at the history of revolution in a general sense, we turn now to the Bourgeoisie.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The Bourgeoisie are one of the two (main) classes that exist during the time of Marx—that is, according to Marx. The Bourgeoisie as a class are descendants of the burghers of the Middle Ages—a class of people that were not in the servitude of the serf, yet not of the same privilege of the feudal aristocracy. It was through the colonization of the European states, through their expansion into the new markets of the East-Indies and China, that the Bourgeoisie were able to accumulate power. Eventually, with the rise in demand for goods being high enough that guilds—and the overall feudal production system—could no longer supply it, the Bourgeoisie stepped in with industrialization and the new modern industrial model. This started a revolution that would depose the old feudal way of life, bringing in a new era. The era of the Bourgeoisie. The era of Capitalism. Since then, the Bourgeoisie have done all in there power to end all forms of non-Capitalistic forms of life.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Capitalism, and the whole of the Bourgeois way of life, is only possible due to an increase in the production of the society. The Bourgeoisie accomplished this increase in production through a series of, to Marx, unnatural developments. First, there is the transformation of industry to be a cosmopolitan, taking away any sense of nationalistic or regional style. This works to create a world that is globalized, with a single, global culture. The increase in industrialization also led to an increase of urbanization across the board. The nations that these urban and industrial centers crop up in then lose out on their previous production of raw goods, leading to a scenario where the East is being used to supply the West with raw materials, and then the West supplies the world with refined goods. This is all made possible by the stripping down of the work done by labourers to its barest components (in essence, making jobs simpler), thus, in Marx's mind, taking away the honour of many occupations. This commodification of workers—of the Proletariat—seeks to take away all aspects of individual character from them. This is then coupled with a decrease of wages for workers, as they as individuals matter less and less to the machine of Capitalism, thus leading to increased production for the Bourgeoisie, increased profit, and the creation of an essentially slave class in the Proletariat.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>As previously sated, the role of the Proletariat in the Bourgeois Capitalist system is to work for the Bourgeoisie as essentially slave labour for the entirety of their existence, with little to no hope of upwards social mobility. Unlike in previous eras, though, when the population of the working class—be it the slave populations of the Greco-Roman world, or the serfs of the feudal world—stayed relatively stagnant, the numbers of the Proletariat continue to grow. This is due to two reasons. First, there is the demands of Capitalistic machine to produce ever more and more. To do this, there must be an increase not only in the supply of goods, but also in the supply of labour. Second, there is the tendency of what Marx refers to as the petty-bourgeoisie to have negative social mobility, falling down into the Proletariat class, as they are unable to compete with the Bourgeoisie. In order to increase their productivity, the Bourgeoisie pit the Proletariat against each other, or against the enemies of the Bourgeoisie (either in the form of non-Bourgeois institutions, or against other Bourgeoisie to further consolidate power). However, by doing this, the Bourgeoisie must grant additional power to the Proletariat. This is, as Marx notes, the way that the Bourgeoisie have begun to dig their own grave. But more in this later. Let us now turn to the Capitalistic system, and its major flaw.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The Bourgeoisie rule through a system of industrial Capitalism. This system is one that relies, as previously stated, on the Proletariat. It is a system that cannot exist without the exploitation of the Proletariat—through the decreasing sums of their wages, the increasing amount of units created, and the increase in the number of working hours—and the exploitation of the peoples of Africa and Asia—whose exploitation the Bourgeoisie rise to power was based off of in the first place. The other crucial aspect of the Capitalistic system is its need to constantly be growing, for without growth, it will stagnate. Since it is through this constant expansion of the Capitalist machine, and the disturbance of social conditions that it causes, that the Bourgeoisie's rule is based off of, they are constantly having to seek avenues of expansion for their creation. If, at any point this expansion were to stop, and the social conditions were to solidify, as it were, then the entirety of society would be able to see the sorry state that it was in, and the Bourgeoisie would lose all power. Ergo, there ruin of the Bourgeoisie, and their Capitalistic system will come with a financial crisis. This financial crisis can come in many forms, though it is noted by Marx that the form that it is likely to come about through a type of financial crisis that was previously unknown to society—that being the overproduction of goods.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The question then becomes who will overthrow the Bourgeoisie during one of these financial crises. The answer is quite simple, really. It will be the Proletariat. In the view of Marx, it is the role of the Proletariat to rise up against the chains that bind them to the Capitalistic system of the Bourgeoisie, establishing a new society in the wake of the revolution. This will be done in several ways, in Marx's mind. First, there is the accumulation of political power by the Proletariat. This power is given to them freely by the Bourgeoisie, as discussed earlier, for the combating of the enemies of the Bourgeoisie. It is the hope of Marx that the Proletariat will be able to use this political power to establish majority control in the parliaments of Europe. His hope was that the Proletariat Revolution would be predominately peaceful, though he did recognize that there would almost certainly be resistance to the taking-over of the governance of states from the Bourgeoisie overlords, and because of this, Marx believed that physical force was permissible in the Proletariat Revolution (though the instilling of terror was not permissible)20. Another reason that the Proletariat will rise, according to Marx, is because of their being grouped together by the Bourgeoisie in order to increase the productivity of factories. This allows for the fermentation of a revolutionary spirit among the Proletariat. Thus, you have the conditions needed—those being a financial crisis and a high degree of political power—for the Proletariat revolution to occur, and also how Marx theorized it would occur—that being with violent resistance to the taking-over of government by the Proletariat from the Bourgeoisie. However, as Marx said at the beginning of The Communist Manifesto, the history of the world is a history of class struggles. In every instance of revolution, in every change of the social hierarchy that has occurred throughout history, the revolutionary minority class has always asserted its dominance, and then summarily subjugated the rest of society to its will. How then will the Proletariat Revolution be any different than every other revolution that came before it?<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The answer to this question lies within the history of the Proletariat class, and the special constitution that it holds. As we know, the Proletariat came to be as a product of the Industrial Revolution set in motion by the Bourgeoisie. They live as second-class citizens compared to them, akin to slaves. However, unlike all previous points in history, the Proletariat constitutes the vast majority of the population. This is due to the need of the Bourgeois Capitalistic machine's endless demand for labour to turn its wheels. So, unlike any other revolutionary group, the Proletariat is not a minority group. Because of this, Marx believes that the Proletariat revolution will not include the aspect of oppression that all previous revolutions have had, for oppression that was used in previous revolutions works only when oppressing the majority of people. The Proletariat Revolution then, because it is not oppressing people like previous revolutions, will seek to destroy any institutions that exist within preexisting Bourgeois, Capitalistic world. This includes any aspects of laws, religion, and morality that work to perpetuate the oppression of any of the members of society. The two chief aspects of the Bourgeois world that Marx cites as needing to be disposed of though, and a source of heavy criticism for his work, are that of private property and of the institution of the family.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The institution of the family is one that has existed for as long as can be remembered in Western Civilization. However, this institution has not always been the same. As Plamenatz points out, the reason that we have families in the first place is to raise children, who, without aid of adults, would surely perish. This is part of how we as a species live, and cannot be avoided. But, this does not mean that the current familial system is the way that children should be raised, nor does it mean that it is the only natural system can come to be. Again, as Plamenatz points out, the mere act of childbirth does not establish the social bond between a mother and her child. It is only through, in his mind, an obligation to take care of this child that the social bond between the two is formed. If we think about this idea, as foreign as it may seem to many who have grown up with their biological parents, it does make sense. After all, there are millions of children who are adopted, forming a parent-child relationship with people who are biological strangers to them, relatively speaking. Oftentimes, other family members will step in to raise a child as well, when parents die or are too busy to take care of their children full-time. Wealthy families today, and throughout history have also made use of hired servants to take care of their children. Therefore, the idea of not having the “traditional” familial system is not nearly as absurd as it may first appear to be. It must be asked though why Marx wishes to abolish the “traditional” familial system. Marx seeks to do away with it because, in his mind, the “traditional” familial system acts as a way to perpetuate the inequality that exists between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat—as the familial system allows for the accumulation of wealth into the hands of a select group of individuals, with no fear of the loss of that wealth with the death of the patriarch of the house. This is why, in addition to wanting to dissolve the institution of the family, Marx also wanted to abolish inheritance. So, by taking the family out of the picture, the Proletariat removes one of the institutions of oppression that exists in the Bourgeois world.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The other source of oppression that Marx cites as needing to be removed is private property. By this, Marx is referring more to private ownership of capital. Marx makes it extremely clear that people will still be able to enjoy the fruits of society (meaning consumer goods). They just will not be able to own capital. In this, Marx says that there will be no difference in the lives of the Proletariat, as they already have not capital. The only people who will have their lives changed with be the Bourgeoisie. This is perfectly acceptable to Marx, as the only use of capital by the Bourgeoisie has been to exploit and oppress the Proletariat. Instead of private ownership of capital, the Proletariat will incorporate capital into the possession of the community as a whole, using it for the benefit of the commonwealth, and not the lives of a few of the individuals within it. They will not destroy it. This is because, as Wolin points out, it is not the goal of Communists to destroy everything that Capitalism has created, but rather, it is the goal of Communists to inherit the world that they made, and to improve upon it.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The world as the German political philosopher saw it was divided into two main classes—the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. The Bourgeoisie were, according to Marx, the ruling class of the era. They rose to power after leading a revolution against the feudal system, and upon emerging victorious, they asserted their dominance over the rest of society through a constantly-changing system of production called Capitalism. It was from this system that the Proletariat were born, a class of workers whose sole purpose was to feed the engine of Capitalism. However, Marx believed that the age of the Bourgeoisie would come to an end with a revolution of the Proletariat. This revolution will occur in opposition to their oppression by the Bourgeoisie, and will be possible due to the consolidation of Proletarians together for increased productivity, the granting of political power to the Proletariat by the Bourgeoisie to fight the Bourgeoisie's enemies, and an inevitable financial disaster that will occur due to the instability of the Capitalistic economic system (stemming from the constant need for further expansion and exploitation inherent to the system). When the Proletariat Revolution does occur, it will be a rapid one. In it, the Proletariat will remove from power the Bourgeoisie, and will, instead of following in their footsteps and asserting their own power, oppressing others, will do away with the class system by abolishing any and all institutions existing that allow for oppression, including the institution of the family, and the idea of private ownership of capital. By doing this, the Proletariat will inherit and modify the Capitalistic world to suit the interests of the majority instead of the minority. Thus is the relationship that exists between the Bourgeoisie, the Proletariat, and the Capitalistic system they share, and how, inevitably, the Proletariat, through revolution, will overthrow Capitalism.<br />
<br />
Bibliography<br />
<br />
McLellan, David. The Thought of Karl Marx. 1971. Print.<br />
<br />
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Manifesto of the Communist Party. New York: Penguin Books. 2006. Print.<br />
<br />
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Manifesto of the Communist Party. Edited by Gareth Stedman Jones. New York: Penguin Books. 2002. Print.<br />
<br />
Plamenatz, John. Man and Society. Vol. 2. A critical examination of some important social and political theories from Machiavelli to Marx. London: Longman Group Limited. 1976. Print.<br />
<br />
Wolin, Sheldon. Politics and Vision. “Chapter 12.” Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2004. Web. 5 June 2016.<br />
<br />Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6409083074967561935.post-62480779043201895502016-05-30T07:25:00.005-07:002016-05-30T07:25:55.447-07:00How and Why Did Machiavelli's Idea of Prudence Differ from Existing Models?The late Fifteenth Century and the beginning of the Sixteenth Century was a period of great turmoil and change on the European continent. In 1492, there was the “discovery” of the American continents by Christopher Columbus. In this time period, you also had the rise and fall of the notorious Borgia Popes, and Italian Wars, culminating with the partition of the Kingdom of Naples between France and Aragon (though this deal would eventually fall through, and Aragon would gain sole control of Naples, which would later be taken over by Castille after the Iberian Wedding. What also occurred during this time was the ousting of the Medici family from Florence, and the rise of an infamous political philosopher named Machiavelli. Machiavelli served the new Florentine government for fourteen years, acting in a role much like that of the United States' Secretary of State, until he was forced into “retirement” by the re-instillation of the Medici family by the Spanish. It was during this forced retirement that Machiavelli wrote the work that he is most famous for. Titled The Prince, this work detailed how best a ruler of a principality—that being anything state that is not republican—should act prudently. The goal of this essay will be to examine the prudence that Machiavelli prescribes in The Prince, comparing it to the established models of prudence, in particular, the model that is given by Cicero's On Duties.<br />
<br />
To begin, let us first establish the idea of prudence that Machiavelli is setting out in The Prince. After establishing what is meant by a principality (see above), and then establishing the differences between hereditary and new principalities (hereditary being long-lasting principalities, and new being ones that are new), Machiavelli moves on to discuss the prudence associated with conquest. He promotes either the establishment of a tributary, puppet government or direct rule of newly conquered territory by moving into said territory and making it the conqueror's home. He does not recommend changing existing laws, however, as he believes that the best way to rule over a conquered population is to provide as little change as possible until one's rule is well enough established as to not have rebellious tendencies for the changing of a long-standing law, or the introduction of a new tax. Machiavelli then goes on to discuss the different ways that one can come into power, and the benefits and disadvantages that come with each means of ascension. These, while interesting, will not be discussed in the course of this essay, except in the case of the wicked ruler. The interest in the wicked ruler is not about how they come into power, but about how they hold power. According to Machiavelli, a ruler who is wicked, and comes into their power through their wickedness, is apt to rule in a cruel manner. This, to Machiavelli, is an ineffective way to rule, and he believes that by ruling in such a way, one will not be able to hold onto their power. This will be important later.<br />
<br />
Another point that is made extremely clear by Machiavelli is that a ruler should trust nobody. This can be seen time and again throughout The Prince. It is seen when describing the way that one might come into power through installation by nobility, when discussing the use of mercenary armies to fight in wars and of auxiliary—or borrowed—armies, and when dealing with people in one's court—whether they be ministers, or merely courtiers. This distrust of the rest of the world for ruler is based off of the idea that in order to maintain power, one must not become complacent. One must always be on one's toes, and should work to address not only problems that are occurring, but any problem that could occur as well, all of which could stem out of the previously listed things that a ruler should distrust. It is from this logic that Machiavelli's infamous line on whether or not a ruler should be feared or loved is based on. In answering the question of whether a ruler should be loved or feared, he believes that rulers should aim for both, but if they cannot achieve both, that it is better to rule with the people fearing you, since one cannot trust people, as they are apt to betray you. If they live in fear of you, and not in love of you, then you as the ruler will be able to better tell who is likely to betray you, as you will not have your mind clouded by flatterers and their ilk.<br />
<br />
Now that we have examined the distrust that Machiavelli believes is imperative for any ruler to posses, let us turn to the other traits that he believes a prudent ruler should possess, as well as some of the methodology that should be used by a ruler to exercise their power, and to cement their position. First, Machiavelli believes that a proper ruler should have a martial focus in their rule. A ruler should always be engaged in military campaigns, and if their land is not engaged in an active state of war, then rulers are to be practicing for war, and studying the art of warfare. This is because, in Machiavelli's eyes, the only way that the rulers of principalities obtain power, and therefore the only way that they maintain power, is through warfare. It is then, through this practice and study of warfare that the rulers of principalities can prepare themselves for any situations that may arise to challenge their power—and thus maintain their power.<br />
<br />
This theme, that being of the maintaining of power, is of the utmost importance to Machiavelli. He has little concern with the actual governance of principalities. Rather, he is concerned with how a ruler can govern in a manner that secures their existing power, and that allows for avenues of expanding that power, going so far as to say that, “a ruler who wishes to maintain power must be prepared to act immorally when this becomes necessary.” For example, Machiavelli recommends the use of propaganda to drive the public to the side of the ruler. He also believes that a ruler should be ready to break their vows at any point in which honoring them would injure the ruler, but at the same time, the ruler needs to be able to come up with some sort of excuse for the breaking of the vow, in order to protect their reputation and image. This is important, because as was mentioned earlier, Machiavelli believes that being a cruel ruler is a surefire way to end one's rule. This is due to the feelings of hatred and contempt that will arise when a ruler has a cruel reputation. It is through this than that the reputation of the ruler affects their power through how it affects the stability and the unity of the realm as a whole. Because the stability and unity of the realm as a whole has an affect on the power of the ruler, it is Machiavelli's opinion that the ruler should be concerned with the unity of the realm. This is why he believes that while cruel acts are necessary, that they should come down in largely together, in confined areas, and during a small period of time. This works then to confine the cruelty, thereby preserving the reputation of the ruling, and securing the unity of the realm.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of the maintaining power comes as a direct counter to the actions that Cicero believes that a prudent ruler should do. This contradiction to Cicero occurs when discussing the idea of generosity (or as Cicero calls it, liberality). In this, we see Machiavelli continue to preach his rhetoric of pure self-interest. To him, being generous is simply willing injuring yourself by giving away what you have. He also acknowledges, though, that being seen as generous is important, as it can help one secure and gain power. He comes up with a compromise between these two aspects of generosity then, by advising that rulers give only enough to appear generous, and no more—for what really matters, he concludes, is the appearance of virtue. For what difference is there between a generous ruler, and one that appears generous to the common man? There is none, at least to Machiavelli. This same logic applies to the other virtues that a ruler is traditionally supposed to posses—these virtues being primarily the ones that are outlined by Cicero in his On Duties, among other classical philosophers.<br />
<br />
Now that Machiavelli's idea of how a ruler should rule prudently is established, let us look at how it compares to the existing model that is given by Cicero. To Cicero, the most important thing that any citizen can do (not just rulers) is to live up to, and fulfill their duties—with the most important of these duties being toward the Republic. Now, while Machiavelli is talking of principalities, and not of republics, this duty to the republic that Cicero is discussing can easily be applied to the duty of the ruler to the commonwealth. Having established that, the fulfillment of this duty to the commonwealth is achieved through the completion of honourable acts, which are in turn acts that are in accordance with virtue. This is in direct opposition to the model that is given by Machiavelli, who believes that only the appearance of virtue is what matters. Cicero also believes that those who strive for military command, and for honor, and for glory, are acting in a manner that is dishonourable, and thus unfit for a ruler. This then also is a point in which Machiavelli and Cicero appear to disagree on.<br />
<br />
On the subject of cruel rulers, it would seem that Machiavelli and Cicero would tend to agree, except on one count. While they both agree that being a cruel ruler—what Cicero would call a tyrant—is wrong, Cicero would also have believed that acting cruel towards subjects at any time would be wrong as well. This is because to act cruelly is to act unjustly, which is both dishonourable and tyrannical in a ruler. Machiavelli is more of a pragmatist in this (and in most things), believing that the ends justify the means. It is because of this view of a ruler needing to do only what is honourable that Cicero would also not be able to accept that acting immorally could ever be justified. In fact, Cicero would go so far as to say that to act in such a manner actually injures a rulers position, and can end in them losing their power—such as what happened to the dictator Caesar in the Senate.<br />
<br />
The last of the differences that will be examined between the work of Cicero and of Machiavelli is again concerning virtues. In particular, it is concerning the idea of generosity, otherwise known as liberality. As previously stated, Machiavelli believes that generosity of any kind is harmful to the person who is being generous, as it decreases their material power. At the same time, he views appearing generous as essential to maintaining goodwill. For this, Machiavelli has Cicero to thank. It was Cicero who outlined liberality as a virtue in On Duties. While he did recognize that one could be too liberal, to the detriment of themselves (and thus recommended against this level of liberality), he did not believe that being liberal in itself was harmful to individuals. In fact, he believed it was beneficial, and not only because it was virtuous, but also because one citizen being liberal would begin, in his eyes, a chain of liberality that would then seek to improve the well-being of everyone involved, and thus, the commonwealth as a whole. Machiavelli, then, is in disagreement with Cicero on this as well. It would seem to be that this disagreement, and the other disagreements that they have, stem from the interests of the two writers. Cicero is interested in the commonwealth as a whole, while Machiavelli is concerned with the ruler of the realm.<br />
<br />
If one were to characterize the ideas of Machiavelli in The Prince, they would not be amiss in calling it a work cynical pragmatism. It is a work that is focused on the rulers of realms, and how they can maintain power. In it, Machiavelli turns away from the established model of prudent governance as established by Cicero on many counts. He disagrees with the idea that leaders should be virtuous, and that they should care for the commonwealth—instead advocating for leaders acting purely in self-interest who exhibit only the appearance of virtue. He is by no means afraid of immorality, and in fact supports it in the actions of rulers, unlike Cicero, who believes that acting against virtue is dishonourable, unjust, and tyrannical. Thus is how Machiavelli sets out his idea of prudent governance, and how it compares to the model of prudent governance that existed previously, as set out by Cicero.<br />
<br />
Bibliography<br />
<br />
Cicero. Edited by M.T. Griffin and E.M. Atkins. On Duties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991. Print.<br />
<br />
Machiavelli. Edited by Quentin Skinner and Russel Price. The Prince. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2009. Print.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Jordan AG Douglashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02153178756329767458noreply@blogger.com0