The two comics present themselves as drawings of a child's
imagination albeit one
in sleep w hi le the other w hi le awake. This choice is at t he
core of the dif ferences in
their associated ideas w ith the child. At the vi sual l evel, both
seem to i ndul ge in the
childhood fantasy of flying off to an adventure in a different
world. Both pay great
attention to the visuals capturing the power of a creative child's
imagination. But
the choices that McCay and Watterson make, present different
pictures of the
nature of childhood. Nemo is dreaming in his sleep and has no
(conscious) control
over hi s exper ience. Although the vi suals are str iki ng, the
dialog wi th i ts short and
awkw ard sentences, like "He'll enjoy that r ide, sur e" and "Don't
r un! Don't r un aw ay,
I won't hurt you, no. No!" or "You just can, and I hope you
succeed." is sometimes
rudimentary. Even the narration is somewhat crude in its sentence
structure. e.g.
"He felt the bed ascending ceilingward, and while it astonished
him, it also
interested him considerably." Compare it to say, "He felt the bed
ascending
ceil ingward. Alth ough Nemo w as astoni shed, he was in credibly
curi ous.", wh ich i s
both shorter (95 vs. 104 characters), assuming space to be a
concern and less
awkward in my opinion. 1
child has limited verbal faculty. Next when we look at the actions
in the panel we
again see Nemo shows little initiative or agency, be it flying off
with the princess or
on a bed. The comics start off with other people deciding over
something which
defines the rest of the comic. As a child, most of their decisions
are made by other
people. I think McCay is trying to put that sense of lack of agency
in the comic. In
the second comic, although Nemo is curious, fear of the unknown
(which meant "no
harm") overcomes this curiosity and he ends up running away looking
for the
protection of his mother saying "Oh| Mama! Come and get your little
Nemo".
rest of the events in the earlier panels. McCay seems to be saying
that a child's
mental imagination is completely irrational of which one has to
wake up out of, to
go back to rational reality. Nemo's mother's irrational
explanation, connecting
doughnuts to dreams further show how adults look down on children
and their
thoughts as less intelligent.
On the other hand, Calvin is consciously day dreaming constantly
describing his
alter-ego's actions in the third person. This commentary is fairly
sophisticated. This
is evident in sentences like "In a surprise maneuver our hero turns
to face the
adversary! His hands tighten around the death ray trigger" or "Out
in the farthest
reaches of the galaxy speeds that splendid specimen of spirit and
spunk, the
1 I am not sure if this is because it was wr itten in 1905 when
comic as an art form wasn't as
developed?
Commented [H1]: What is awkward about these sentences?
Commented [H2]: This is really based on nothing but arbitrary
‘taste’ – you are saying that a compound sentence is more
‘rudiementary’ than two relatively simple sentences – why?
Commented [H3]: Proof?
Commented [H4]: You appear to be using the word ‘ irrational’
rather loosely. Why is the link between food and dreams
‘irrational’? And what about the visual echo of the doughnut in the
moon?
1
spectacular spaceman Spiff." (Notice the alliteration). They
exhibit the advanced
nature of Calvin's verbal faculties. In contrast to Nemo, Watterson
has given all
agency to Calvin. Be it flying or facing enemies, Calvin himself
does everything,
albeit most of it in his dreams. Unlike Nemo
he sees, when Calvin looks at the ants and lichens, he draws
insights: "Spiff reflects
displaying both
intelligence and rational thought. Also by merging the last panel
together with the
events in the r est of the comic, W atterson seems to be saying
that the the creative
thought need not be disconnected from the
rational’real’ /ever yda y. Instead it
might help bring a new perspective, just like what Calvin does by
seeing anthills as
skyscrapers. Also we see that what Calvin fears (or sees as
enemies) are people in
the immediate reality who show up as characters in the dream. This
is unlike Nemo
who fears the strangers in his Slumberland. Watterson seems to be
saying that
dreams, created by a child, are a function of the real w orld and w
hat a child fears
are the figures in real life who show up and distort his dreams.
Assuming, the
unknown as something to be feared, in the case of Calvin the
unknowns are the real
people who are not his creation rather than the dreams which are
his own creation.
Here we see a similarity in some sense with Nemo who also fears his
dreams
because he hasn't consciously cr eated itthem.
Grade: B-. You needed to end with an overall argument that
summarises and ties
together your piecemeal analysis. Also, while your piecemeal
analysis shows good
grasp of detail, it is often undermined by preconceived / loosely
defined notions /
assumptions.
Commented [H5]: Good – this is firm proof since it depends on
recognised rhetorical strategies rather than preference for one
kind of sentence structure over another.
Commented [H6]: Doesn’t he? The visuals ARE his perspective if we
claim that he is dreaming. And his reactions to the acrobatics of
the candyman are also recorded.
Commented [H7]: So ‘intelligence’ is to be measured only by the
ability to abstract/generalise? And what does this have to do with
‘rationality’?
Commented [H8]: You are using the word ‘rational’ very
loosely.
2
Question: Both comics contain a child character - Nemo and
Calvin. How do the two comic strips
represent the figure of the child? What ideas are associated with
being a 'child'? Are they more similar or different in the two
strips? Please make sure that you look at the visual and verbal
aspect of the texts in
answering this question.
All of the comic strips try to make a reader empathise with the
child protagonist, some of them more than
the others. In all of the strips (barring the first panels of the
'Little Nemo' strips) the protagonist is present
in the visible region of each panel. In the second Nemo strip, the
size of Nemo remains constant despite
the relatively out of proportion surroundings. The panels in
'Calvin and Hobbes', even when having another character speaking
(the teacher, or the bully), chooses to show Calvin in the frame.
This is only
the visual aspect though.
perspective, which somewhat alienates the reader.
into the fantasy world of his dreams comparable to that of bedtime
parables. The world is like that of a a
fairy tale, with great winged birds, travel to the moon on a flying
bed as well as a fickle notion of
distances and sizes (as indicated in the five hundred miles easily
becoming five thousand miles and the mouth like door entrance).
Nemo, on waking up from a pleasurable dream wishes to go there
again (
"How did I wake up? I wish I could go to sleep again") whereas when
he has a nightmare, he cries for his
mother ("Oh!Mama! Come and get your little Nemo oh!").
Calvin's innocence is that of a child who is being forced into
uncomfortable situations and is confronting them by living them in
an alternate reality that he conjures from his imagination. His
interaction with the
outside affects his dreams and he lives out his fantasies as a
waking dream wish fulfillment. When he is
asked to answer a question in class, he starts rattling out all
possible random answers ("1812", "i before
e"), none of which work. This is mirrored in his imaginary world
where he is trying out every possiblity ("mertilizer beam",
"phospho bombs") and they all fail to defeat his adversary. His
exploration of ant hills
is compared to a space colony of tiny trees and farmland. The bully
is the "doofus ignoramus" monster.
None of his actions have any ulterior motive.
In contrast to sharing their innocence,
their personalities seem to be completely different. Nemo is a
timid
of his bed, piece by piece, kept him busy guessing, that
sightseeing was out of the question"). When in the
unfamiliar territory of the moon, he runs away, calling for his
mother.
Calvin's alter ego, on the other hand, is a fearless adventurer, on
a quest to discover the unknown. In the 'Spaceman Spiff' avatar,
Calvin commands a spaceship into the depths of space. In the second
strip, he
lands on a new planet (comparable to Nemo's landing on the moon).
Rather than run away, he decides to
explore the planet. The verbal cues ("fearless spaceman Spiff sets
off to explore a new planer", "in a
surprise maneuver, our hero turns to face the adversary", ".. human
scale is by no means the standard for life") as well as the visuals
of the blackness of space and his spaceship being tiny speck
illustrate his
explorer like attitude.
reality, not an escape from it. This in turn highlights another
aspect of being a child that is highlighted in
the comics - that of their reaction to outside stimulus. Nemo's
fantasy is involuntary in nature. He does
not have any sort of control over his dreams. In the first strip,
his good sleep makes him have a good
Commented [H1]: What does this have to do with the idea of
‘child’?
Commented [H2]: But that’s true with Nemo too!
Commented [H3]: Link? How are you defining innocence a nd what is
its relationship with fantasy?
Commented [H4]: Meaning? Isn’t his construction of an
alternative reality a way of coping/confronting his lived reality?
That
is an ‘ulterior motive’. Also, in this whole paragraph, you are
doing more summary than analysis – what is the significance of
Calvin
creating an alternative reality? What aspect of ‘child’ does this
point
towards?
Commented [H5]: The question is NOT about personalities, but about
ideas of ‘child’ – these are tw o different levels of
analysis.
Commented [H6]: A disappearing bed is hardly a place of ‘familiar
solace’!
Commented [H7]: How are these two to b e distinguished? Isn’t
escape a mode of coping?
his circumstances is timid by nature. His dream of Slumberland
portrays him as a curious child as well. In the first strip, he
keeps asking the
princess questions ("what is he doing that for", "are we not
soon over the wall?"). Even in his nightmare,
hold on to the last pieces of his bed, whereas some have him
peering all around to see the sights
surrounding him.
attention deficit disorder. However, he chooses to respond in the
real world too. The vision of 'Spaceman
Spiff' could also be an embodiment of what Calvin wants to be but
cannot. The largest factor in support of
this is his description of the spaceman as a third person
narrative. The tiny spaceship among the stars seems far away in
some of the panels and close to us in some other, and in each of
the final panels, Calvin
these views (that of an escape vs that of a coping mechanism) the
author wishes to propagate. Resolution
can only be had by reading more of Calvin and Hobbes, and in
particular, his adventures as 'Spaceman Spiff'.
Pranav, you do good textual analysis, but have a tendency to jump
to conclusions / generalized
statements. Try to avoid that. Also, the question was asking for an
exploration of an idea – that of the ‘child’ – not a character
analysis. So you needed to expand the character analysis into more
abstract
categories to see how these two embody two different notions of the
‘child’, not just two different
children. Remember, they are characters, not real people!
Commented [H8]: Says who? Why make this g eneralization?
Commented [H9]: How is this idea of curiosity to be reconciled with
timidity?
Commented [H10]: Why?
.
Question: Both comics contain a child character -- Nemo and Calvin.
How do the
two comic strips represent the figure of the child? What ideas are
associated with being a 'child'? Are they more similar or different
in the two strips? Please make sure that you look at the visual and
verbal aspect of the texts in answering this question.
Answer:
A child is associated with innocence. Their minds are
uncorrupted by the influence
of 'mature' indoctrination. In the comic strips Calvin, a child of
six and Little Nemo,
aged nine, are the tools for the cartoonists to paint a very
imaginative and satirical
but also a true image of the world we live in. They see the world
as it is but with a
very pristine and pragmatic perspective which opens up our
constructed, myopic
viewpoint.
The two comic strips also reflect a child’s experience of space,
with its dialectics of
safety and danger, the homey and the uncanny. For Nemo, the mere
bed is more
than just a bed. It is a vehicle which transports Nemo to the
slumber land,
those mobilized voyages of discovery. Similarly in Calvin and
Hobbes, Calvin
repurposes the places of everyday life and engages in a state of
endless day-
dreaming. In Calvin’s imagination, an ordinary box may turn into a
space-ship. A
child is also associated with fear in both the comic strips. When
Nemo finds himself
in the moon with Lunatics, he is afraid and runs away despite
Lunatic’s repeated
assurances that he won’t harm Nemo. Similar in the Calvin and
Hobbes strip, the
appearance of the monster reflects a child’s sense of fear. The two
strips also paint
the imagery of a child’s innate curiosity. When Nemo finds his bed
vanishing, he is
not afraid but curious. Similarly in Calvin and Hobbes, the sense
of curiosity is
is reflected in the comic strip of Nemo is a child’s empathy. There
is a sense of
empathy for the condor in Nemo when he says “He does not want to
go” while the
Nemo is irritated by the Candid Kid on the condor and wants him to
stop.
Commented [H1]: Awkwardwordchoice–whatdoyoumean
by‘mature’inthiscontext?Whynotjust‘adult’?
Commented [H2]: Wherearetheseagescomingfrom,andhow
aretheyrelevant?
Commented [H3]: Avoidsomanyjudgementalwords;focuson
analysisinsteadofevaluation.Also,where’stheevidenceforall
theseclaims?
Commented [H4]: Butthisisdoneinsignificantlydifferentways
–thebedfallsapartasthedreamisentered,whereasthe
classroomiscompletelytransformedintoanotherspace.
Commented [H5]: Wheredoweseethisinthesestrips?
Commented [H6]: ButCalvindoesnotexhibitfear!
Commented [H7]: Good–thisisclearanalysisfromspecific
evidence.
search of a new planet. He is therefore a part of the larger
scientific obsession for
and the surroundings they live in, as the yardstick for living
forms. But Calvin
through his broader imaginative mindset actually sees the
possibility of life forms
quite different from the Earthly humans: things tiny to him are
skyscrapers in the
new planet, and its inhabitants, tiny too! And he remarks "Human
scale is by no
means the standard for life forms." However in his imaginative
world he does not
conjure up a perfect world; even his new planet has a giant which
would break apart
the peaceful civilization given a chance. Quite clearly, children
are not that far
removed from reality. Similarly, Little Nemo also imagines his own
dream space. But
all is not perfect even in his Slumberland! His adventures involve
flying though he
up somehow.
In a way both Calvin and Little Nemo are similar as they both
indulge in their
ways by themselves. In a way, both are intelligent in addition to
being highly
imaginative.
Grade: B-. You make some good points but there are many claims
without textual
Yeats' poem invokes the first person while Asimov's story is
written strictly in the third person.
How does this difference in narrative perspective impact the
relationship between the reader
and the vision presented in the respective texts?
he seems to be conveying his view of people to the reader
regarding who the victims were, in the war.
'Spiritus Mundi' he tries to bind the reader to the prophecy in a
very implicit manner. Spiritus Mundi refers to the concept of a
collective unconscious. By invoking this idea, Yeats seems to be
aiming to include the reader and every being with a mind to his
prophecy.
The third stanza is where his fi rst person style of writing
affects the reader’s understanding. He begins with ‘now I know’ to
unfold his interpretation of the vision to the reader. It tells the
reader about the fears and apprehensions of the prophet. It is also
a very clever way of streamlining the reader's thoughts in a
direction to keep them from wandering. Hence, the use of first
person narrative becomes an effective tool in conveying the
writer's vision.
The narrator is unconnected to the events of the story. This is
evident from the fact that he/she is aware of the presence of Earth
while the inhabitants of Lagash are not.
By using such a mode of narration, Asimov is able to introduce the
reader to multiple characters (such as Theremon the newsman, Aton
the astronomer, Latimer the Cultist etc.) and give the reader
objective information about each character's physical description
and behaviour. (‘Sheerin laughed and dropped his stubby figure into
a chair’)
Empathy is not invoked directly, as in the case of Yeats'
poem. It is invoked through the experiences various characters have
throughout the narrative.
Commented [SM1]: Where does the first person point of view become
evident in the first stanza?
Commented [SM2]: Is it presented as ‘his’ view or a general truth?
Please pay attention to language!
Commented [SM3]: In a poem, the correct word is ‘stanza’ not
‘paragraph’.
Commented [SM4]: Do not quote incorrectly!
Commented [SM5]: Why? How does sympathy come in simply because he
says ‘my’?
Commented [SM6]: How does this relate to narrative
perspective?
Commented [SM7]: What does that mean? How does the first person
strategy keep the reader from ‘wandering’?
Commented [SM8]: How do we know that?
In place of directly asking the reader to imagine living in
the dark, Nightfall's narrator shows us our own different ways of
confronting the unknown through different scenes in the story. We
are shown through Theremon's character, the side of us that is
cynical and prudent and will not take things on face value. The
Cultist's character represents devout belief and blind faith. The
deductions of the scientists that there only six stars in the
universe which proves wrong in the end opens the reader’s mind to
the fallibility of beliefs we consider as rational.
subjected to.
Thus the relationship between the vision and the reader in the two
texts is affected by the bond the reader develops with the first
person narrator in Yeats’ poem and the lack of it to give more
freedom to the reader to interpret the vision in
Nightfall.
Commented [SM11]: Basis for this claim? After all, the narrator is
omniscient and CHOOSES to tell us the story in a certain way –
isn’t his view implicit in his choices?
Commented [SM12]: this is the difference between ‘show’ and ‘tell’,
not the difference between narratorial perspective.
Commented [SM13]: Basis for this claim?
Question: Yeats' poem invokes the first person while Asimov's
story is written
strictly in the third person. How does this difference in narrative
perspective impact
the relationship between the reader and the vision presented in the
respective texts?
Yeats' poem presents a prophetic vision in a first person narrative
style. The
assumption that is often made when a text is presented in the first
person is that it
makes the reader empathise with the narrator since only one
perspective is presented.
However, with all the symbolism in the prophecy – such as that of a
'rough beast'
with a 'lion body and the head of a man', 'rocking cradle' etc,
this text seems to
function in a slightly different way.
interpretation of the interpretation of the prophecy that Yeats
himself presents. When
This means that the events that a reader would associate the
prophecy with would
seem to be of a 'troubling' nature. From the discussions in class,
these could be
amongst- World War I, the rise of the IRA, the October revolution
and Soviet Russia
or even the rise of Hitler.
In the final stanza, Yeats writes- 'but now I know that twenty
centuries .. were vexed
to a nightmare'. While this stanza seems to describe only his own
interpretation of
what he sees in his vision,
they assume that the prophecy is describing. A 'nightmare' is
implied to be the
interpretation, furthering the 'troubling' nature of the prophecy.
In particular, the last
two lines – 'rough beast … to be born' might be read as implying
the smoothing of the
nationalist movement of the IRA, or the impending disaster of when
Hitler rises to
power. All of this means that the reader is attributing a
predictive nature to the
interpretation to the prophecy described. Had it not been in first
person, say- 'the
darkness drops; leads to the vexing of a stony silence and an
impending storm', it is
possible to interpret this as an upcoming revolution, and
might even be read as a
historical poem describing the Renaissance. The 'to be born' could
signify rebirth of
culture and thought.
metaphors in conjunction with the 'troubles my sight' of the
previous stanza makes it
less likely to be such a historical poem.
Asimov's Nightfall has two different visions, both presented in
third person. One
describes the alternate universe of the planet Lagash while one
relates to the prophecy
Commented [SM1]: Good point. But do you mean ‘sympathise’
or’empathise’?
Commented [SM2]: Interpretation IS thought!
Commented [SM3]: Good connection!
Commented [SM4]: Why? What about the narratorial perspective
pushes in this direction?
of the cultists in the story. There is a difference in the
narrative style used for both.
For the cultists prophecy, the narration is objective. Asimov
describes the scenes as
being witnessed by a silent observer in the room. Most of the
story seems to follow
this style. Asimov keeps writing the dialogue between Sheerin and
Theremon,
sometimes joined by other characters. Although an objective
description should not
bias the opinion of a reader, the stress on the cultists
prophecy being one of 'lunatics
and children' seems to make the readers feel inclined to believe
that it is so (despite
being aware that the cultists are right about the existence
of millions of stars). For a
completely objective narration, Asimov could have chosen to
alternate the story
between the observatory and the temple of the cult, where
common people were
panicked and ready to do anything (including attacking the
observatory) to attain
salvation. It is possible that one would be less biased as a reader
in this case. In this
sense, the narrative style leads a reader to believe that they have
'chosen' the correct
side based on objective opinion, making the shock of 'crimson glow'
of a 'long night'
seem more traumatising.
There are a few places where Asimov chooses to show himself ?the
narrator as an
omniscient being. One of them is in the beginning of the story-
writing an Epigraph
by Emerson right at the beginning and the others are towards
the end (Pg 20- 'Dusk,
like a palpable entity … world retreating into shadow', Pg 23- 'Not
Earth's feeble
thirty-six hundred Stars … cold, horribly bleak world'). All of
these portray the nature
of his vision of Lagash itself, not of the prophecy in the tale.
These make more sense
in light of the discussions in class with respect to the
philosophical question- of
whether the unimaginable is expressible. The narrator takes this
sort of stance since
speculating this situation in a relatable world(with similar social
structure,
separately explain the symbolism he used in the poem.
Asimov, uses a third person objective narrative but the characters
and the setting is
familiar and makes a reader relate more to them. The omniscience of
the narrator and
the readers own knowledge affect the readers differently
sparingly so as to create maximum impact when used, and this
highlights them from
the rest of the story.
Grade: B-. You begin well with identifying strategies of narration
in both texts and
how they impact the reader. But then your analysis becomes more
content oriented,
moving away from narratorial perspective which is supposed to be
the focus of the
answer. You needed to connect this content with narratorial
perspective by focusing
Commented [SM6]: What you are talking about is narrative choice
(paradigmatic choice) rather than narrative style /
perspective.
Commented [SM7]: Relevance to question at hand? This appears to be
more about the content than the narratorial perspecive.
Commented [SM8]: That is NOT what you have said earlier. There you
have said that the emotional weightage biases the interpretation in
a certain direction.
Commented [SM9]: Irrelevant
Commented [SM10]: This is about content, not point of view!
Commented [SM11]: It is used THROUGHOUT! It is a story written from
a third person omniscient perspective.
Question: 1) 'Dream' and 'Prophecy' have been proposed as two
distinct formats for
visionary writing. Which format would you put King's speech into?
Why?
Please define the two formats clearly as part of your answer to
this
question.
Answer: Before analyzing the question I would like to define the
two formats of visionary writings i.e,
'Dream' and 'Prophecy'.
Dream
The look up on oxford dictionaries provides two meanings of Dream
in its usage as a noun:
1. A series of thoughts, images, and sensations occurring in a
person’s mind during sleep
2.A cherished aspiration, ambition, or ideal.
Going by these two meanings there can be two definitions of 'Dream'
as a format of visionary writing.
In the first definition, 'Dream' can be exploited ? as tool to
convey involuntary visions experienced
during slee
p. Dreams can be both speculative and extrapolative in this
definition.
Whilst in the second definition of 'Dream', the visions are
particularly voluntary aspirations. This is
what mostly aspirations and expectations from future.
extrapolative with a clear way from here and now to there and then.
For example- I have a dream that
I'll graduate with good grades, if I work hard.
Prophecy
Dictionary definition of 'Prophecy' is given as:
Commented [H1]: Meaning what? And how does this relate to these
dreams being involuntary?
1.A prediction of what will happen in the future
With this meaning the definition of 'Prophecy' format of visionary
writings comes as a tool to convey
visions which talk about the prediction of a future event which is
destined to happen. Mostly the
prophecies gives the vision of a future which will
happens immaterial irrespective of what we do to
change it.
Analysis of King's speech.
In my opinion King's speech falls into the format of 'Dream'
following from the second definition of
dream. The visions of a future of Martin Luther King is
talking as his personal aspirations of an ideal
Dream”.
at that time.
King asks his listeners to wake up and work together for a revolt
to realise his “dream that one day on
the red hills of Georgia sons of former slaves and sons of former
slave-owners will be able to sit down
giving a way to realize this dream he asks,”Let freedom
ring!”
The 'Dream' King is talking about is his vision of future. His
visions of future are “his cherished
aspirations”. His visions are extrapolative in in nature as he
starts talking from the “here and now” of
the injustices and talks about a future he dreams of “the there and
then”, but while expressing his
visions
he also gives the recipe to realize it which is the
“extrapolation”. Then he comes back to present
again. Following by the all of the above observations, I'll
consider King's speech as a visionary writing
as a 'Dream'.
Also a “Prophecy” is that vision of future which is a prediction of
future no matter what the agencies
do. A prophecy also doesn't tells you ways to go to
materialize one's visions. Since King doesn't predict
a future of racial equality rather has aspirations
for? King's speech can't be considered a prophecy.
Grade: B. You do a very good job of defining both formats, and then
linking King’s speech to one of
them on the basis of its title / main focus (aspiration). But you
fail to give specific textual evidence for
Commented [H3]: Why? Without a reason, this is an arbitrary
claim that doesn’t stand up.
Commented [H4]: Good – linking title to format creates immediate
strong evidence.
Commented [H5]: What time, and whose promises?
Commented [H6]: How does‘let freedom ring’ indicate
people working for this dream?
Commented [H7]: Where? How? You need textual evidence to support
each claim you make.
The text of The Communist Manifesto talks about the classification
of society through the ages, and dissolution of existing classes -
the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The Manifesto models the
abolition of private property in general and declassification ?? in
particular as its vision for the future. Abolition of the concept
of Free Trade is what it calls for. Another text with a very
prominent idea of freedom is the speech “I have a dream” by
Martin Luther King Jr. This speech calls for the attainment of
freedom from the clutches of racial prejudices and
segregation.
Both the texts talk about freedom from classification at some
level. The Manifesto focuses on the classification of people into
the bourgeoisie and the proletarians. The Manifesto talks about the
material means of production as the instruments that allow the
bourgeoisie to restrict the proletariat
inequalities. The speech by King talks about the breaking of the
social barriers of race, rather than that of economic class. The
means were the mentalities of the people as well as the laws
of
America. Despite the Proclamation
of IndependenceEmancipation, the laws of segregation
bound the black person to “
a lonely island of poverty amidst a vast ocean of material
prosperity”. These are the shackles that King seeks to
abolish.
selling and buying”. Further, the Manifesto goes on to state that
these stand for “naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation”.
Only the bourgeoisie has freedom while the proletariat is bound to
its fancies. Communism seeks to bring this freedom to all by
abolishing the freedoms of the
bourgeoisie. It is a subtractive ideology leading to an
“association, in which the free development of each is the
condition for the free development of all”. This idea of freedom is
ideologically different
life as he pleases irrespective of his race or religion or creed.
King was fighting for the attainment of this freedom for the black
population of the USA instead of reducing the freedoms of the
white
people. His is a more additive idea of freedom.
The concept of freedom in the Communist Manifesto is a very
material' one. It is linked to the
an ideology. The freedom to intermingle does not involve any
physical material. It is an ideological change that King want to
fight for.
Martin Luther King Jr. gives the reader visions of a world in which
everyone has the same freedom. A child of any race would have the
freedom to play with a child of another race. A black person
would have the freedom to vote for who he wanted, and be able to
stand for elections. Anyone would be able to utilize public
conveniences such as motels and hotels. Black people would have
freedom from police brutality.
On the other hand, The Communist Manifesto seeks to give the
working man the freedom from subjugation inat the hands of the
bourgeoisie, by depriving the latter of the freedom to
appropriate
the products of proletariat labor.
that King's speech does. It adheres to widely accepted notions of
freedom. Thus, it seems that the
two texts both want to promote equality, one by promoting and one
by reducing freedoms.
Commented [SM1]: So freedom is defined basically as freedom from
class inequality?
Commented [SM2]: That sounds more economic than social?!!
Commented [SM3]: When only quotes are used, it does not show YOUR
understanding of the ideas. So when you make a claim such as
‘subtractive ideology’, it remains unclear, as does the idea of
‘abolishing freedom’ since you have not specified what freedom
means here.
Commented [SM4]: So ‘freedom’ is not an instrinsic right in the
Communist Manifesto? Or that freedom means something different from
being able to live life as one pleases without racism / religious
discrimination?
Commented [SM5]: Aha – NOW I understand. But this is based on a
misunderstanding of the Manifesto which is NOT talking about taking
the same freedoms away from the bourgeosie and giving them to the
proletariat, but of changing the very idea of freedom – as stated
in the first sentence of this paragraph. So how is that
‘subtractive’?
Commented [SM6]: Voting and accommodation are very material facts;
also, you appear to be confused here between ‘ideology’ and
‘idealism’.
Commented [SM7]: Your last sentence ignores the very important
point you’ve just made before that. If the definition of freedom is
being changed in one, then that is NOT the same as reducing freedom
(which assumes that the definition remains constant!) . You may
want to think more about what is this new idea of freedom being
proposed in the Communist Manifesto, instead of
Grade: B-. This is a good attempt at conceptual analysis which
suffers from some confusion at the
evident in section I, where the authors describe the history
through the lens of class struggle. They write how the bourgeoisie,
with their Modern Industry revolutionized modern production and
took control away from the feudal lords, "putting an end to all
feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations." and
later claim that how "
foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates
products" They say how the
proletarians have anyway "lost all individual character",
"owing to extensive use of machinery, and to division of labour"
and all concepts of individuality, family, religion etc are
conceptions of bourgeois society ("bourgeois clap-trap about
family …") and their means of controlling the
proletarians. Through all this, the authors divide the
population into ingroup consisting of the proletarians and
outgroup consisting of bourgeoisie and the aristocrats (section III
feudal socialism). They dismantle all other approaches to improve
worker conditions by casting them as hypocritical
still rooted in the past with the same conception of proletarians
as "suffering class" and render them illegitimate. This makes it
easier for the proletarians who could be confused by the similar
nature of their aims, to work with the Communists who were their
only representatives.
The intended impact of this text on the proletarians is to convince
them how they have been
out of control means of production and exchange (like the sorcerer
who is no longer able to control the powers)
are on the way to their doom, how the society is on the cusp of
imminent revolution and how the communists are on going to bring
this about thus bringing control of means of production in the
hands of working class, who "alone is the really revolutionary
class". The text functions as a call to
action for these proletarians. The text also functions to unite the
proletarians across nation boundaries under one class label.
We see this in sentences like "it compels all nations, on pain of
extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production" and
"made the country dependent on
towns, … barbarians ans semi-barbarian countries dependent on the
civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois,
the East on the West." and of course "Working Men of All Countries,
Unite!"
Grade: B-. You have focused on effect/ intended impact more than
intended audience. Your focus
on the polemical strategy of the text which clearly creates an
‘ingroup’ and an ‘outgroup’ is good, and clarifies the different
impacts it has on both, making the primary intended audience
the
Formatted: Left
Commented [SM1]: I think you are confusing Section I with Section
III; the latter is where reformist ideologies are critiqued.
Commented [SM2]: This misrepresents ideas – do not delete words in
a way that the idea itself changes!
Commented [SM3]: ‘Representatives’ in what sense? Or the only ones
whose ideology actually was in their favour?
Commented [SM4]: ?? I thought the idea was complete control!
1
startoutbydefiningfreedom,followedbyhow‘TheCommunistManifesto’andmy
chosentext–‘Ihaveadream’byMartinLutherKing,atthelevelofcontentusethe
ideaoffreedomundertheumbrellaofthisdefinitionoffreedom.Abstractingthe
content,Iwillmovetocomparewhatismeantbyfreedomattheconceptuallevelin
thesetwotexts.
Freedomliterallymeansthepowerorrighttoact,speakorthinkasonewants.It
alsostandsfortheconditionofnotbeingenslaved.Theseconddefinitionmay
includetheideastalkedaboutinthefirstdefinition.IntheCommunistManifesto,
MarxandEngelsclearlyidentifythecurrentconditionofproletariatsasenslavement
(Thetextquotesthisas-‘Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois
class, and of the
bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine,
by the
overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois
manufacturer himself ’).Very
literallyhere,byexplicitlydescribingtheprocessofthisenslavementthroughthe
growthofmodernindustry,theorganizationoflabourersintosoldiersofanarmy
whoseworkisdevoidofanyindividualcharacter,andfinallytheconversionofthe
proletariatworkerintoanappendageofthemodernmachines,theideaoffreedom,
orthelackofit,isbeinginvoked.Thebourgeoisindustrialistisclearlyaccusedof
exercisingcontrolinfourmajorways–first,bysuppressingthevalueofindividual
skillandtreatingahumanworkerasaninstrumentofproduction(quotedas-Owing
to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labour,
the work of the
proletarians has lost all individual character, and,
consequently, all charm for the
workman).Second,
byexploitingthelabourertoexactprofits–beitbyprolongation
ofworkinghours,orincreasingworkexactedinagiventimeorincreasedspeedof
machinery(quotedexactlyasmentionedhereinthetext).Third,exercisingcontrol
onwages(the average price of a wage-labour is the minimum wage i.e.
the quantum
of means of production which is absolutely requisite to keep the
labourer in bare
existence as a
labourer )aswellasthemeansofproductionwhichmakesattainment
Formatted: Centered
Commented [SM1]: Thatalreadydefeatsthepurposeofthe
questionwhichisaskingyoutofindthedefinitionof‘freedom’in
thetexts,notcomeupwithyourown!
Commented [SM2]: Howisthisaformofcontrol,andwhatis
therelationshipbetween‘control’andfreedom?
libertyfromtheseformsofcontrolthatresultinenslavementofthe
labourerbythebourgeoisthroughmachines(meansofproduction–whichtreathim
asanappendage,whichhomogenizeanydistinctioninskilltherebymakingit
worthless).Thiscorrespondstotheseconddefinitionoffreedom(andsinceit
includestherestrictiononpowertoactincertainways,italsoencompassesthefirst
definition.)
InKing’sspeech,eventhoughtheNegroisliterallyfreefromenslavementbut,as
Kingputsit–‘But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not
free. One hundred
years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the
manacles of segregation
and the chains of
discrimination.’ByrestrictingentryofNegrosinlodges,disallowing
themtherighttovote,effectivelytheirfreedomtoactthewaytheywantistaken
away.Thiscorrespondstothefirstdefinitionoffreedom.Inthisway,boththetexts,
at
thelevelofcontentusefreedomasanelement.
3) A Manifesto, by definition, is meant for a collective audience
whom it attempts to convince of
its ideas / promises. According to you, what group is the intended
audience for 'The Communist
Manifesto'? Please make sure that your answer looks at the ENTIRE
text of the Communist
Manifesto (all four sections). And in answering this question,
please also elaborate on the
intended impact of this text on its intended audience.
I believe that the Manifesto of the Communist Party (henceforth
referred to as the Manifesto)
has two groups of people as its audience. First, it is a sort of a
call to the class of people the
Manifesto defines as the proletariat and the second is a
not-so-veiled threat to the ruling class,
the bourgeoisie, who are invariably also the most vocal critics of
Communism. The Manifesto
figuratively tears apart the various objections that the
bourgeoisie have against the fundamental
tenets of Communism. It also establishes, through its paradigmatic
choices of interpreting
history through the lens of a somewhat unidimensional? class
struggle, how the Communist
ideology is meant for the proletariat to establish through a course
of radical changes, a society
in which class distinctions between oppressor and
oppressed has disappear ed and there is
'free
development' for all.
A clear aim of the Manifesto is to make the proletariat aware
of their role and power, urging
them through various arguments, to never cease their struggle
against bourgeoisie who control
the means of production. As explained clearly in the final chapter,
the Manifesto wishes to instill
in the current proletariat, the recognition of existence of hostile
antagonism between them and
the bourgeoisie.
the means of production of the bourgeoisie class shall lead to a
revolution among the working
classes, initially to elevate them to the position of the ruling
class (at least temporarily) i.e. - a
sort of dictatorship of the proletariat. The Manifesto urges the
working class to recognize that a
revolution to upset the existing social conditions is what is
necessary and inevitable. The
revolution is needed to forcibly change the accepted bourgeois
notions of private property,
family, individualism, nation etc. It is needed to remove the
bourgeois notions that ingrain in
have no interest separate from the proletariat. The Manifesto
reassures the proletariat that it is
they who the Communists are for, they who can fulfil the aims of
the ideology of the
Communists.
If however, I try to judge the impact, I would say that the most
important impact is to bring about
Formatted: Centered
Commented [H1]: Good job – clear identification of two audiences
with two correspondingly different intended impacts.
Commented [H2]: Confusing – it is not the development of class
antagonism that will lead to revolution; it is the awareness
amongst the proletariat of their shared class position that will,
in fact, create them as a political ‘class’ that will lead to
revolution. Also, what does this have to do with intended audience
/ impact?
instantiations of the abstraction that the Manifesto calls a class
struggle between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat (the very first opening line
declares so) It also lays out the
theoretical reasons behind this struggle, as in how the modern
bourgeois society, through its
supremacy and control, is no longer able to control the rate of
production, more specifically,
over-production that
necessitates mass destruction of productive forces, conquest
of newer
markets, growth of the enigmatic ? 'capital' and hence, increase in
numbers of the labour class.
Since
it cannot control the growth of the immense majority that
constitute the proletariat, hence
it is inevitable for the proletariat to be victorious, provided it
constitutes itself into the
revolutionary party that the Manifesto envisions. The impact is on
the psyche of the collective
group of the proletariat to wrest political power through
revolutions (the means are not clearly
given) and to bring about an end to injustice through the various
actions (abolition of property,
centralization of credit, abolition of inheritance etc, the 10
points of the second chapter) The
impact is to capitalize (no pun intended) on the growing scattered
movements and discontent
whatever revolution they intend to carry out to overthrow existing
social conditions. As a
Manifesto should be, it presents radical strong statements and aims
to bring under one banner,
the working class, cutting across and hence denying all divisions
that the bourgeoisie might
have established – of race, nation, caste and creed. “Working Men
of All Countries, Unite” aptly
justifies what it aims, a unifying call to arms. However,
what impact it does not intend to make,
or rather has failed to make, is to more clearly define the path to
be taken by the revolutionary
assures an automatic transition from the rule of the proletariat to
a classless, supremacy-less
equal society, provided the old conditions of the production are
swept away. How this shall lead
to the subsiding of class antagonisms is not clearly
mentioned.
Hence, as a clarion call, its intended impact is on the proletariat
to set the ball rolling, but to
serve as a complete guide with all answers to the nitty gritties of
the problems that the people
might face if an ideal classless society is established is not
discussed.
Let us move forward towards the other class that the Manifesto
addresses, the bourgeoisie. It is
evident that the Manifesto clearly warns the bourgeoisie, who have
established themselves as
the ruling class, to take heed that their destruction and overthrow
is inevitable via their own
deeds. Initially praising the class of bourgeois people for
overthrowing the feudal structures of
places like Europe to let industry and trade be the new measure of
social hierarchy, Marx and
Engels go on to examine how this notion has translated all notions
once held supreme, the
sanctity of family, of an individual, of private hard-earned
property, of noble professions, of
nations, into relations of trade and exchange of money – into a
monochromatic relationship
between wage-labourer and means of production. It is aimed to
clearly scare the bourgeoisie,
the various people of the ruling class, warn them that their deeds
have led to the establishment
of a majority of distraught people whose seething anger the
Communists intend to capitalize on.
The very last paragraph declares how the Communists “disdain to
conceal their views and aims”
- how they intend to justify their abolishment of long held
concepts now corrupted by bourgeois
mentality.
Commented [H4]: Good job – it is a redefinition highlighting ONE
perspective that both creates and attempts to rouse a specific
‘class’ of audience.
Commented [H5]: Logic unclear – how is growth of markets leading to
increase in numbers of the labour class?
Commented [H6]: How can it not control this? The proletariat are
CREATED by the forces of production that are controlled by the
bourgeoisie.
Commented [H7]: In whatever revolution, or in a specific kind of
revolution? What is the intended impact? A promise of solidarity,
or a promise of solidarity with a caveat of shared political
ideology?
Commented [H8]: True – and a problem, but I don’t see how this
relates to this pa rticular question.
bourgeoisie themselves. It is aimed to let the bourgeoisie realize
that they must tremble at the
possibility of a Communistic revolution. It is intended to make
them realize that the cornucopia
of capital they have created has led to the consolidation and
growth of a huge number of labour-
class proletarians who shall lead the revolution. This Manifesto
clearly tells both the classes that
one must realize that they have led to their own downfall while the
other must come together to
realize that they have nothing to lose but their chains in the
struggle for class equality. Its
impact is to make everyone aware of the aims that the ideology of
Communism intends to
pursue and the interpretations it assumes for the classes to play
their roles.
Before I conclude, I must say that there are also mentions of
different aims that the Manifesto
has towards the working classes of different nations. Especially
interesting in the impact they
expect on Germany, where a bourgeois revolution is about to take
place, following which
proletarian revolution is inevitable. The impact they wish to make
might be to initially get the
of a classless nationless society is fulfilled.
In conclusion, I hope I have been able to argue how the Manifesto
has aimed to address both
classes of society, its followers to be and its critics, to impact
their view on history and to
establish the final society based on abolition of bourgeois
notions, through the revolution of the
proletarians.
Grade: A-. Yes, you’ve done a very good job of identifying the two
intended audiences and the
intended impact on both. The only unclear point is the precise
relationship between the
bourgeoisie (a ‘class’) and the critics of communism (a group
identified by varying political
ideologies).
Commented [H10]: So you are assuming that the critics of communism
and the bourgeoisie are IDENTICAL groups (all bourgeoisie are
critics of communism, and all critics of communism are part of the
bourgeoisie)??
Commented [H11]: What role is earmarked for the bourgeoisie?
Question: Broadly speaking, human nature can be understood in two
very different ways - as something innate and unchangeable OR as
something that is formed by social conditions and, as such, is
variable / changeable over time and space. Which of these notions
of human nature is
implicit in Chaplin’s speech? Give specific reasons, with textual
evidence, for your answer.
starting statement itself, the human agency is emphasized where the
person is free to make his own choices as to what he wants to do or
not. According to societal values, being an emperor, holding
power over other people might have been the most coveted
thing, but the speaker rejects it upfront and hence in the process
undermines the societal value system against his own. He then
expresses his wish to help everyone - without discrimination on the
basis of ethnicity. He
generalizes this aspect to all humans. The speaker might have
started with an 'I', but as the speech progresses it becomes
clear that it could have been anyone speaking at the podium, any
‘natural’ man, as the speaker states further on. Thus, being human
is something which is seen in terms of a
collective. It is a shared value system. “We all want to help one
another. Human beings are like that.” This line asserts what the
speaker
believes in, that it is the innate nature of humans to be
such. 'Like that' is elaborated upon as he tells
how all humans want to ‘live by each other’s happiness - not by
each other’s misery.’ The speaker also rejects the idea of hate and
despise spite to be a part of being a human. He considers the
human
qualities, i.e
. the qualities that characterize a human being, to be a given and
not something acquired. Further on, he moves to talk about the good
earth which is rich and can provide for everyone, hence
expanding the
human and earth.
way”, thereby placing the responsibility of human behavior on other
external factors other than
human nature.
souls - thus making greed an artificial construct, external to the
human soul. Rooting it further in the external is his reference to
machines, where the machines had led to overproduction, knowledge
acquired - that has made one cynical. All of this places the
negative attributes of human behaviour
two-fold, there is one which is innate to a person, that is the
collective of the human race (which is considered as 'The human
nature') and one which is learnt overtime or which one is
conditioned to
as a result of the external political, social and economic
structural frameworks one operates in (this we can see as mere
human behavior, not central to being a human). The innate seems to
be like a
bedrock, which is always present, unchangeable and
inalienable to being human. The other is temporal in nature and
might even override the innate human tendencies, but that is
seemn as something which is acquired and can similarly be done
away with.
and the one who is so fundamentally rooted in these is an
‘unnatural’ man, ‘machine men with
Commented [SM1]: Relevance? This is about what humans can do, not
what humans ‘are’. You are confusing ‘role’ with ‘nature’.
Commented [SM2]: The question is not about a value system,
but about ‘nature’.
Commented [SM3]: which specific qualities? Hate is a lso a quality,
but that doesn’t seem to be innate as far as he’s concerned.
Commented [SM4]: Misunderstanding of question, which is NOT
about the relationship between human and nature, but about human
nature itself.
Commented [SM5]: Textual evidence?
Commented [SM6]: Independent of what?
Commented [SM7]: Logic unclear – how is human nature linked to
‘nature’?
Commented [SM8]: How is losing one’s way indicative of external
agency? It could also be due to our own carelessness!
Commented [SM9]: Circular logic – because greed is the cause
therefore it must be external??
machine minds and machine hearts!’ These unnatural men are the ones
who perform the negative
imprison innocent people. If the system is changed, if human
progresses enough then the unnatural negative actions will be
curtailed automatically, and negative feelings would not propagate.
The human negative behavior is limited by and fears human nature,
and would cease to exist as human
nature resurfaces and takes control of human actions.
Similar to the condition of men is the condition of technology, the
aeroplane, the radio – which
inherently speak of the goodness in mankind. But, what if the same
means are used in a system of dictatorial power, these then become
instruments of inflicting pain and death, communicating fear
humans.
The speaker points out that structure that has caused despair and
misery is the dictatorial regime and it is the political structure
of democracy that can liberate men. By pointing out that the power
is
inherent within men, the speaker gives the man the agency to be the
creator of his own life, but along with that he mentions
restrictions like ‘national barriers’ that condition men, that
limits the exercise of this inherent power within individuals.
These curtailed humans then behave in a certain
way, in ways which are unnatural to being human. They are the
effect of restrictions, conditions - both social, economic
and political that are put on man. Whereas what is innate is free
of all
two levels at which human behavior functions - one that is present,
and one that is learnt as a result of being part of a particular
institution/ political structure; the speaker invokes the innate in
man-
the human nature. This tells us about his belief that how human
nature is a set of positive feelings is something that is
interwoven in the fabric of being a human, and this is a common
binding feature that could bring together humans to adopt positive
actions and fight for a common cause- 'for
liberty'. Liberty from these external structures, these constructs
which limit human nature. Human nature is seen as an essence with
an independent existence, it is neither limited to an individual
nor can be separated from his existence. All the people who are in
the collective of this essence which
enables one to create a life of happiness, are humans, and the rest
which aren't interwoven in this fabric are the outliers- the
'unloved' machine mens.
Commented [SM11]: Good use of textual evidence and explanation to
make your point!
Commented [SM12]: Confusing – what is the ‘system’ and where does
it come from?
Commented [SM13]: Excellent parallel between ‘human’ and
‘technology’. Does raise the question, though, as to the accuracy
of ‘machine men’ as a negative since ‘machine’ here is not seen to
be inherently negative.
individual concept. In the speech in The Great Dictator, the
speaker gives us a view of human
nature at birth is of a certain kind, and can be changed over time
explicitly or implicitly by their
societal conditions or by instruction.
The first paragraph is where the speaker describes what human
nature innately is. He talks of the
feeling of mutual help, and that people naturally do not want to
hate or rule. He speaks of how he does not want to be an emperor,
or to rule. This gives us the idea that despite his environment
that would allow him to be so, his human nature is not given to
commanding. It is a comment on his
universally. Society cannot change these.
From the very next paragraph, the speech talks about how society
can twist human nature. The
speaker talks about greed as a poison. He talks of knowledge making
people cynical and cleverness making them hard and unkind. These
imply that human nature is naturally not so, and that these
are?(what are?? – re-state in your own words to show your
understanding) some of the causes that
on the system not the perpetrator. It shows an assumption that if
the system was not as it is, people would never commit such
injustices. The last paragraph contains a call to
“do away with greed, with hate and intolerance”. Further, in the
fifth paragraph, he addresses soldiers. He pleads with them to gain
control over their nature, and to not allow “brutes” to mold
them. This shows an underlying assumption that human nature is
moldable, and also that people have a choice in which direction
their nature changes, and that it is possible to externally
influence the change in an individual's nature.
In conclusion, the concept of human nature as being innate rather
than formed is implicit in Chaplin's speech in The Great Dictator,
while saying that societal norms and conditions can twist or
Life is not a formative, but modifying process.
Grade: A-. A neat clear argument, but it refuses to tackle
underlying assumptions by not engaging with ideas of ‘knowledge’ /
‘system’ that vitiate this ‘innate’ human nature to figure out
what
aspects of ‘life’ are seen to be modifying it.
Commented [SM1]: Meaning? Humans are a species; individuals are
sole representatives of that species. ‘Nature’ refers to the entire
species, NOT to individual specimens.
Commented [SM2]: Good summary of your argument.
Commented [SM3]: Good – pulling evidence from different parts
of the speech shows how this idea runs throughout and so is a
basic premise of the idea of human nature.
Commented [SM4]: Which is what? How do you understand this
difference between ‘system’ and human?
Commented [SM5]: Very nicely put.
2) Broadly speaking, human nature can be understood in two very
different ways - as something
innate and unchangeable OR as something that is formed by social
conditions and, as such, is variable / changeable over time and
space. Which of these notions of human nature is implicit in
Chaplin's speech? Give specific reasons, with textual evidence, for
your answer.
A) I believe that Chaplin’s speech chooses the notion of human
nature to be innate and unchangeable. The tense in the statement
quoted (“We all want to help one another. Human
beings are like that”) as well in general in the text while
referring to human character, is perceived to be present imperfect
tense which implies that the statement being made is true in
general. In the statement “Greed has poisoned men’s souls”, the
author seems to imply that
greed is something ‘outside’ the soul and not something that can be
created in the soul, the character of human nature that this
portrays is that human nature is not made of hate or greed.
divide between human nature and human mind, and opposes these two
forces, mentioning that
knowledge and cleverness, constructs of the mind are in contrast to
human nature being kindness. In this statement (“ We think too much
and feel too little.”) We see the divide between
thinking and feeling, one which is done by the mind and the other
whatever you may call it, soul
or here which refers to human nature. Phrases like “.. cries out
for universal brotherhood.. victims of a system..” take these
opposing forces the construct of the mind versus human nature
or humanity and evaluates them, by using the word victim, since the
mind is shown to be taking over the soul, feelings, kindness all
akin to human nature, and has been portrayed as the
perpetrator as well as something that is “external” to human
nature, even it is undeniably a part
of the human. “The hate of men will pass”, the speaker predicts
that the hate will pass as it is
transitory unlike human nature which will survive the torture of
the mind-ly constructs causing war and bloodshed due to lack of
kindness. It provides human nature an unchanging position
and the mind and hate and greed created outside human nature to be
transitory that will pass.
While I have been going on about the mind and soul as opposing does
the following statement
contradict it?- “Don’t give yourselves to these unnatural men -
machine men with machine
minds and machine hearts”.
is what is machine like about then that makes then un-natural as
opposed to human nature.
But this machinery is the very construct of the mind hinted earlier
in- “Machinery that gives
abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical”
since it seems to imply
that machinery was born from our knowledge and cleverness. “You
have the love of
humanity in your hearts! You don’t hate!
Only the unloved hate.” This statement is crucial, it says that
love is intrinsic to humanity or human nature and that only the
unloved can hate,
but in the vision if there is kindness and love, that is if human
nature triumphs then there would not be unloved people who would
hate!
To conclude, the Chaplin speech sides on the notion of an
unchanging human nature and
that is something one should bank on to achieve the vision
described in the speech.
Grade: A-. An excellent analysis of how mind and ‘soul’/ heart have
been distinguished
in this idea of ‘human nature’. But you leave unexamined the idea
of being ‘unloved’ as
well as the means by which mental constructs create hate – what are
these mental
constructs in everyday practical terms?
Question 2) Broadly speaking, human nature can be understood in two
very different ways - as
something innate and unchangeable OR as something that is formed by
social conditions and, as
such, is variable /changeable over time and space. Which of these
notions of human nature is
implicit in Chaplin's speech? Give specific reasons, with textual
evidence, for your answer.
Ans: This question talks about the two understandings of human
nature which as often known as the
nature versus nurture debate, The two sort of understandings of
human nature as as
I) Innate or unchangeable: The understanding of human nature under
this school of thought is
known as innatism. It means that we humans have basic nature that
cannot be changed over time
with environmental experiences or even conscious efforts.
II) Changeable as a result of social conditions or variable: In
this human nature is understood as a
blank slate which is formed over time and then changed with
social experiences. Under this
understanding human nature can also change with time and
space.
In my opinion the notion of changeability of human nature is
implicit in Chaplin's speech in The
Great Dictator.
Firstly, In the speech the ideal nature for humans are defined to
be considered humans in the first
paragraph with, “I don’t want to rule or conquer anyone. I
should like to help everyone - if
possible - Jew, Gentile - black man - white. We all want to help
one another. Human beings
are like that. We want to live by each other’s happiness - not by
each other’s misery. We don’t
want to hate and despise one another.”
But then he claims that this very basic nature of humans is
adulterated with the last line of the
paragraph with “The way of life can be free and beautiful,
but we have lost the way.”
This is the first manifestation of the fact that the speaker is
subscribing to the “dynamic” notion of
moved away from its ideal nature of innocence. The cause for such
change in nature is also
mentioned as “greed” in the line, “Greed has poisoned men’s souls,
has barricaded the world
with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed”
With the above observation I can claim it as the first instance of
implicit assumption of changeable
nature of mankind in support of my argument.
Chaplin speaks about how we have changed in “We have developed
speed, but we have shut
ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.
Our knowledge has made us
cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and
feel too little.”
After that he speaks,”More than machinery we need humanity. More
than cleverness we need
kindness and gentleness.” He also said,”The hate of men will pass,
and dictators die, and the
power they took from the people will return to the
people.” These lines conveys Chaplin's faith
that human nature that has been corrupted due to greed and
ambitions can be changed back to
righteousness through conscious efforts. This is the second
instance in support of the argument that
the speaker believes change can happen in human nature.
In conclusion I would like to write that aforementioned instances
proves my point of an implicit
notion of human nature that is formed out of social experiences. In
the whole speech I perceive
Chaplin as defining the central reference line on a moral compass
and telling us that on the course
of development
how human nature has moved off from that. He then asks us to look
towards going
right on the moral compass by making efforts to change our nature.
Which is evident from looking
at the instances quoted above as a whole.
Grade: B-. You begin with good definitions of the two options, but
then begin to focus only on the
idea of changeability, ignoring completely if that change occurs on
a ‘blank slate’ or on an ‘innate
nature’. And so your argument becomes weak at times when you also
use words that point towards
an innate idea of human nature.
Commented [H2]: You have not provided an evidence / analysis of
this claim. ‘Conscious effort’ is not the same as ‘social
experiences’ and that is the only cause of human nature you have
hinted at so far.
Commented [H3]: This again giv