William Shakespeare bestowed Hamlet upon the world at a time when his audience was highly concerned with the relationship between religion, politics and the universe. Written around 1600, the play emerged at a tense time in English history when uncertainty loomed regarding the shift of power from Elizabeth I to a new heir. Philosophical studies from the early 17th century tell us that Shakespeare’s audience was focused on issues such as Christian obedience to God, the moral significance of social institutions, and the human fascination with revenge. The Elizabethan audience embraced Shakespeare’s revenge tragedy, utilizing it as a venue to interpret their own morals regarding religious tradition, political corruption and social structures. The play no doubt struck a chord with the audience members’ innermost desires, fears and morals as being very personal, but acting on those emotions can create a domino effect on the outside world. Shakespeare borrowed elements from previous revenge tragedy writers to make Hamlet a very introspective, philosophical drama. Through Shakespeare’s revenge play, the Elizabethan audience was able to explore the notions of revenge and justice between individuals as well as political structures.
Shakespeare followed the standards for a revenge play that were set by Seneca, a Roman statesman and philosopher who lived in the 1st century (Barnet lxvi). Senecan tragedies featured ample amounts of murder and blood followed by a quest to seek revenge on the villain (Kasbekar). Several elements define a Senecan revenge play, and Shakespeare utilized these elements when writing Hamlet. First, the story revolves around a tragic hero whose intentions and inner voice will be self-dramatized (Kasbekar). Shakespeare’s Hamlet is such a character, elaborating on his own philosophical ponderings through lengthy, poetic soliloquies. Second, an obsession with crime and a preoccupation with torture, mutilation, incest and corpses are prominent (Kasbekar). These themes are evident in imagery and dialogue throughout the play. From Claudius’ incestual marriage to Gertrude to Hamlet’s encounter with Yorrick’s skull, symbols of death remind the viewer of the immorality of the characters and the bloody finale that’s ultimately looming. Shakespeare borrowed from another writer of revenge tragedies for the third element of revenge in Hamlet. Thomas Kyd, who produced an earlier version of the Hamlet tale, the Ur-Hamlet, as early as 1589, introduced a revenge-seeking ghost to the mix (Barnet lxvi). In Shakespeare’s version, Hamlet is visited by his late father who informs him that he was murdered by Claudius, and asks Hamlet to seek vengeance for his death. Hamlet hatches a plan to feign madness in order to catch Claudius admitting his guilt. An avenger feigning madness is an element of the revenge tragedy, as well (Kasbekar). The prince orchestrates a play dramatizing events strikingly similar to those surrounding King Hamlet’s murder, hoping that Claudius’ guilt will surface as he watches the performance. While Hamlet is busy scheming against Claudius, the king is doing the same against Hamlet, attempting to have him murdered. A play-within-a-play and double-crossing are both indicative of the revenge tragedy (Kasbekar). Elizabethan audiences loved the heightened emotional drama this formula offered, as it made them consider revenge, death, honor and morality on a both personal and governmental level.
Shakespeare also explores the theme of revenge as opposed to reason through Hamlet’s internal struggle. A university student who is extremely philosophical and contemplative, Hamlet becomes obsessed with the challenge of revenge when he learns of his father’s murder. He wants to seek revenge for his father’s death, but wants to be sure “beyond a reasonable doubt” that his uncle is indeed guilty of the crime. Hamlet ponders the afterlife, suicide, and what happens to the physical body after a person has died, while simultaneously trying to bring himself to kill another human being. The act of thinking actually holds Hamlet back from acting on his desires. This delay of action is a prominent element in the revenge tragedy. But even though Hamlet thinks obsessively, he behaves impulsively, like when he stabs Polonius through the curtain. It is at this point Hamlet’s feigned madness becomes something rather tangible. In this way, Shakespeare makes the case that one can think too much, and excessive introspection can only leave one lost in his own thoughts. It is rather ironic that it is Hamlet’s fear of death which ultimately leads him to his own.
This introspection sends Hamlet into a deep melancholy; he is disturbed by the state of affairs in his own family and in the state of Denmark in general. His father has been murdered and his uncle has been pitted against him as his arch rival. His mother has disgraced his father by quickly marrying his uncle despite popular opinion that incest is immoral. Because of his mother’s actions, he is so disgusted by women that he even shuns and demoralizes Ophelia, a woman he once claimed to love. His spirit is broken, and he regularly contemplates suicide. Because Hamlet is so concerned with his own self-loathing and misery, he spares no time worrying about the stability of Denmark. Even though Denmark is being threatened both from the outside by the Norwegian prince, Fortinbras, and from the inside by Claudius, a murderous adulterer, Hamlet cannot bring himself to set aside philosophical ruminations to act on the single notion of revenge that he set out to accomplish. Instead, the prince’s introspection leads to his inaction, and mayhem, rather than justice or revenge, is the result.
The welfare of the royal family in Hamlet is reflective of the state as a whole. The play begins with a sense of anxiety and dread, brought on by the uncertain transfer of one power to another. Claudius has just taken over the throne, having murdered King Hamlet. Throughout the play, characters repeatedly assert connections between a ruler’s legitimacy and his nation’s health. In the first act, Marcellus announces, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” (1.4.90). The late King Hamlet was seen by his kingdom as a strong, capable leader, but once Claudius takes the reins, corruption abounds within the country. The audience is given the message that the state cannot be revitalized until the corruption comes to an end. At play’s finale, Fortinbras declares that Denmark will rise again. Since Shakespeare was writing during the reign of Elizabeth I, it is likely that his intentions were, at least in part, to strengthen the trust between the people of England and the monarchy, even though the tale’s setting is Denmark. Despite the bloodshed and gore on the stage, viewers would go home knowing that their country was secure and that evil would not prevail even in a most unjust world.
While the Elizabethan audience enjoyed Shakespeare’s revenge play, it was their aversion to such morals that enticed them. Neither the church nor the state accepted revenge as a moral reaction regardless of the circumstances at that time. Revenge was simply not tolerated because Christian principles dictated that God was the ultimate judge, and also because it was considered a violation of the political authority of the state for an individual to seek revenge on their own terms (Belsey 234). So, while Shakespeare’s audience enjoyed the notion of revenge, they were well aware that the playwright was pointing out a major character flaw within Hamlet – the inability to distinguish between where introspection ends and action begins. They were also well aware of the immoral implications associated with pondering the act of revenge. Many Christians believe that simply thinking a sin is equivalent to committing a sin. But since Hamlet was thinking about murder to avenge his father’s death, perhaps his sin is canceled out. Would Hamlet’s murder of Claudius been more justified than Claudius’ murder of King Hamlet? True Christian thought would conclude that neither Claudius nor Hamlet should be forgiven for the murder of another human being. If Hamlet had succeeded in murdering Claudius, then his soul should be damned. Failing to avenge his father’s death, and, in turn, dying while still in mourning, Hamlet ends up looking like a tragically heroic martyr. This is something the audience would have appreciated the most, knowing that the soul of the protagonist could still possibly be saved despite his earthly failures.
Shakespeare’s tragedies certainly offered the Elizabethan audience a variety of moral issues to examine. By utilizing the common elements of a revenge play – the self-dramatization of the hero, consistent images of death, a revenge-seeking ghost, the feigned madness of the avenger, a delay of action, and a bloody finale – Shakespeare successfully presented his audience with a plethora of ruminations to consider. At a time when people were concerned with the changing hands of power, religious righteousness, and philosophical introspection, Elizabethan minds were playgrounds for Shakespeare. His brilliance lies in the ability to connect with his audience by dramatizing the moral and philosophical aspects of the world around them.
Works Cited
Barnet, Sylvan. “Introduction.” Hamlet. 2nd ed. New York: Signet Classics, 1998.
Belsey, Catherine. “From ‘The Subject of Tragedy.’” Hamlet. 2nd ed. New York: Signet Classics, 1998.
Kasbekar, Veena. Ohio University-Chillicothe. Chillicothe, Ohio. February 2008.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Sylvan Barnet. 2nd ed. New York: Signet Classics, 1998.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
POLS 354 Final
Section 1 – Question 1
Approaches to National Security – Cold War to Present
During the Cold War, the realist school of international relations rose to prominence, guided by fears of nuclear weaponry and a fundamental responsibility to protect the nation-state from an external military attack. Since this era, however, the security of the nation-state has been redefined to encapsulate the personal security of the citizens residing within it. Brian C. Schmidt explains that there is a “mainstream understanding of national security as an armed defense of territory and core values from foreign threats,” but that this belief does not define which grand theory best preserves a state's national security (164). Even though mainstream America agrees that its core values should be defended by arms, the concepts of “core values” and “armed defense” are both subjective. Because national security is now conceptualized in terms of human security, the realist approach to international relations is no longer sufficient.
The highly subjective concept of “core values” is best conveyed through the Jacksonian approach to national security. Through this approach, America is viewed as a “folk community with a strong sense of common values and common destiny.” Its people respond to notions such as “honor, independence, courage and military pride,” and they are dedicated to the unified camaraderie associated with protecting the “homeland,” Christian principles, and gun ownership. Jacksonian ideals, however, were exploited after 9/11, as the event was interpreted by Jacksonians as a clear battle between good and evil, the civilized versus the uncivilized (Kiersey). The initial ideology that the United States had a right to retribution faded once evidence began surfacing indicating that the factors surrounding the conflict were not black and white, and that moral ambiguities were inevitable in such a climate. The United States invaded Iraq under the “mainstream understanding” that it was deploying armed defense to protect the nation's “core values.” However, this war is not being fought in the same climate as the Cold War. No nuclear weaponry was located in Iraq, and mainstream America's “core values” have been exploited for some other purpose. The Jacksonian approach to foreign policy, then, has been discredited because it has been abused. Walter Russell Mead, who identified the four various approaches to national security, claimed that “Jacksonian political philosophy is often an instinct rather than an ideology, a culturally shaped outlook that the individual may not have worked out intellectually, a set of beliefs and emotions rather than a set of ideas.” This is also evident in the Jacksonian disdain for intellectualism (Kiersey). Had Bush reacted more ideologically and less emotionally, the Iraq debacle may have been averted.
The second subjective issue with Schmidt's argument is that of “armed defense.” Each different grand theory offers a different interpretation of the limitations associated with “armed defense.” Does the “mainstream understanding” of national security allow for first-strike wars? It must not be forgotten that both security and threats to it are conceptualized differently by each individual. For example, the Jeffersonian approach to national security stresses caution in foreign affairs and prefers “the least costly and dangerous methods” of protecting the United States in the dangerous state of globalization (Kiersey). This approach would rather avoid possible conflicts with other nations before they begin. The Wilsonian approach, however, claims that it is the United States' responsibility to bring civilization to less developed parts of the world, and in doing so, we must interact with other nation-states. Under this ideology, the United States is not immune from military threats, therefore, they must attempt to create as many democracies as possible in the world, as democracies are more reliable partners in ascertaining world peace than are tyrannies (Kiersey). The fact that there are such varying opinions on how threats are perceived only further demonstrates the need for a clear definition of “armed defense” in relation to national security.
President Obama's approach to foreign policy is mostly Wilsonian, as he recognizes how necessary it is to engage with other nation-states in pursuit of common goals. Now that the country is deeply embedded in an economic crisis, Hamiltonian ideas are making their way into new policies. This approach to foreign policy stresses the importance of industry and commerce as a way of creating peace (Kiersey). Certainly the new administration is focused on rebuilding the world's faith in American commerce. A Wilsonian approach with a hint of Hamiltonianism is most feasible for national security preservation today. The realist approach to international relations, coupled with the Jacksonian approach to national security, has expired. These emotional responses, inevitably, do not protect the “core values” in relation to human security. More intellectual, resolute analyses must now be made about national security, and, today, the Wilsonian approach is more reasonable than the other three identified by Mead.
Section 2 – Question 2
Neoconservative Ideeologies Damaged United States Foreign Policy
During George W. Bush's presidency, Neoconservative ideologies hijacked a Jacksonian view of national security in the attempt to seek moral vengeance on a major foreign policy actor. This action has had an immensely negative effect on United States foreign policy, as it has damaged the administration both domestically and internationally. Foong Khong lists the administration's biggest international failures as: “The failure to find weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, the US mistreatment of prisoners in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, and the eruption of a vicious civil war in Iraq.” Domestically, “US casualties in the inconclusive Iraq war” have damaged the American public's opinion of the administration (252). Bush surrounded himself with a host of fellow Neoconservatives, whose ideologies guided the hand of the United States government for eight long years. The United States' new administrators, and subsequently the new foreign policy actors, have the responsibility to employ a new grand theory in order to restore dignity to foreign policy.
The origins of Neoconservatism were located by Irving Kristol “among the disillusioned liberal intellecutals of the 1970s” (qtd. 253). The liberals, he explained, were disillusioned due to sharp tilt to the left following the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. This was when Jacksonian “core values” were questioned, and liberals began refusing to defend themselves regarding traditional values. Neoconservatives like Kristol found this separation from moral values to be dangerous to the political system (253).
Kristol and Robert Kagan classified Neoconservatives as “fervent anti-communists, emphasizing the ideological and moral superiority of democracy, while advocating the maintenance of a strong military” (qtd. 254). Neoconservatives will advocate bigger military budgets even in times of financial hardship just to preserve “prestige and power of the United States military” (254). More than $600 billion has been spent on the war in Iraq thanks to Neoconservative ideologies, however, the United States military is less prestigious than ever before. Both domestically and internationally, the military in Iraq is viewed as an extension of Neoconservativism.
Krisol and Kagan identified four major tenets of Neoconservative foreign policy thought. The first tenet is the Neoconservative desire for moral clarity in the international arena. Neoconservatives believe that “democratic leaders and liberal democracies are good; tyrants and tyrannical regimes are bad” (qtd. 256). Therefore, morality and the interests of the state should be joined with diplomacy, and the United States has a moral responsibility to act against foreign policy actors who threaten either the interests or the morals of the United States. Furthermore, Neoconservatives conclude that the United States, as a moral institution, has the right to pass judgment on foreign nations it considers immoral. The second tenet of Neoconservative ideology is that the United States should “preserve its military preeminence in the post-Cold War world,” capitalizing on a monopoly of power by acting as “a benevolent US hegemony (256). This also relates to the third tenet, which is that the United States “should leverage its military power” to pursue foreign policy goals. Neoconservatives are quick to employ the United States as a prominent international actor because of the fourth tenet, their skepticism about the ability of international law and institutions to bring about world peace (256-7). During Bush's presidency, all of these Neoconservative tenets were applied to foreign policy.
Foong Khong discusses the various enabling “factors” and “events” which lead to the Neoconservatives' rise to preeminence during the past eight years. First, when Bush was elected president, he appointed at least eight fellow Neoconservatives to important positions in this administration. It was at this juncture that Neoconservative political thought moved from the political fringe to the political spotlight (258). Second, 9/11 gave the Bush administration a new lease to use military force in Iraq. Targeting Afghanistan was symbolic to the preservation of moral clarity in the wake of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, and Iraq posed a similar possible threat to United States national security. Third, suspicions regarding WMDs in Iraq were announced, giving the administration further decree to take action. The one per cent doctrine cleared up any insecurities about the invasion; it stated that “even with a one percent chance of a grave threat materialzing, the US should treat that threat as a certainty and act to eliminate it” (261). One final “factor” related to the Neoconservatives' reign is that since the invasion of Iraq, they have seemingly abandoned the idea of reconstruction. They may push for forceful regime change, but they are not concerned with the idea of nation-building (262). This conflicts the Neoconservatives idea that the United States should be a benevolent arbitrator in such moral situations.
The problem with Neoconservatism is the idea of moral clarity. What is moral and in the eyes of whom? Neoconservatives maintain the United States should act as a benevelent hegemon to the world because it has the military reputation and power to do so. However, these core ideologies have been undermined by a failure to succeed in Iraq. Both internationally and domestically, there is a need for a new approach to United States foreign policy. The Bush administration's reign and the failure in Iraq is a crucial testament to the ineffectiveness of Neoconservatism in foreign policy.
Section 3
Book Review: Samantha Power's Chasing the Flame: One Man's Fight to Save the World
Chasing the Flame: One Man's Fight to Save the World by Samantha Power is the biography of Sergio Vieira de Mello, a diplomat and humanitarian whose contradictions and failures were rooted in the institution he so loyally served, the United Nations. Vieira de Mello, who climbed the UN food chain from assistant editor at the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in 1969 to Special Representative of the Secretary General in Iraq in 2003, embraced international law and the UN as elements of global justice. He insisted that the only way to bring about lasting global stability is to press countries to play by international UN rules (9). But while Vieria de Mello worked diligently to spread the UN's reach to those in need, the organization's internal contradictions consistently prevented flawless peacekeeping. Power's intention is to flush out these contradictions by telling about Vieira de Mello's experiences. Ironically, Vieria de Mello was killed in a suicide bombing attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003, marking the end of a personal evolution that tracked the UN's achievements and failures (xviii).
Power focuses particularly on the UN's mistakes which were exposed in the genocidal crisis of the mid-1990s. Time and time again, she cites instances where the UN's authority prevented, rather than maintained or created, peacekeeping. A general ethic of strict political neutrality ended up favoring aggressors like the Hutu extremists in Rwanda and the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo. In 1994, the UN mandated that soldiers in the area were not allowed to use their weapons, even in self-defense. This lead to Hutu militias massacring some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutu (pg. xvi). In 1995, the UN discouraged the use of NATO air power to end the conflict in Bosnia, therefore prolonging the devastation on the ground. Eventually, the Croatian Army and NATO forces attacked the Serbs, and the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian men and boys was halted by the UN bombing of Serbia, proving that some conflicts cannot be solved without resort to power (xvi).
Power claims that Americans today have two principles: 1) Retreat from global engagement altogether. Or 2) Go abroad to stamp out threats in the hopes of achieving full security. By the end of the 1990s, Vieria de Mello had determined that the best route to world peace is a mixture of the two. He had also concluded, by this point, that the UN needed to shift from peacekeeping to peace enforcement as a part of a new global “responsibility to protect.” The 1990s provided foreign policy with some difficult lessons. Of most importance, hard power is sometimes needed to resolve political conflicts. Because, aside from the UN, we do not have international institutions to resolve such conflicts, the UN must be willing to take a hard line with international criminals.
While it is easy to lay blame on the UN for it's peacekeeping failures, we must realize that the nation-states behind the organization fail to supply it with adequate resources, attention and manpower. Today, as the world is watching the Iraq debacle unfold, the idea that strong countries like the US should use their power to defend human rights or promote democracy around the world has become widely debated. Now focused on an overmilitarized foreign policy, we tend to forget the lessons of the 1990s, that sometimes, hard power is necessary to resolve political conflicts. However, until we have a set of international institutions and legislation intact, this type of diplomacy cannot be effectively deployed. Power describes the UN's failures well through Vieira de Mello's biography, and she provides the substance for a healthy debate on the role of international institutions in foreign policy.
Works Cited
Foong Khong, Yuen. “Neoconservativism and the Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: The Role of Ideas in Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Ed. Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, Tim Dunne. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. 252-265.
Kiersey, Nicholas. Ohio University-Chillicothe, Chillicothe, Ohio. March 2009.
Power, Samantha. Chasing the Flame: One Man's Fight to Save the World. New York: Penguin Books, 2008.
Schmidt, Brian C. “The Primacy of National Security.” Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Ed. Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, Tim Dunne. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. 162-164.
Approaches to National Security – Cold War to Present
During the Cold War, the realist school of international relations rose to prominence, guided by fears of nuclear weaponry and a fundamental responsibility to protect the nation-state from an external military attack. Since this era, however, the security of the nation-state has been redefined to encapsulate the personal security of the citizens residing within it. Brian C. Schmidt explains that there is a “mainstream understanding of national security as an armed defense of territory and core values from foreign threats,” but that this belief does not define which grand theory best preserves a state's national security (164). Even though mainstream America agrees that its core values should be defended by arms, the concepts of “core values” and “armed defense” are both subjective. Because national security is now conceptualized in terms of human security, the realist approach to international relations is no longer sufficient.
The highly subjective concept of “core values” is best conveyed through the Jacksonian approach to national security. Through this approach, America is viewed as a “folk community with a strong sense of common values and common destiny.” Its people respond to notions such as “honor, independence, courage and military pride,” and they are dedicated to the unified camaraderie associated with protecting the “homeland,” Christian principles, and gun ownership. Jacksonian ideals, however, were exploited after 9/11, as the event was interpreted by Jacksonians as a clear battle between good and evil, the civilized versus the uncivilized (Kiersey). The initial ideology that the United States had a right to retribution faded once evidence began surfacing indicating that the factors surrounding the conflict were not black and white, and that moral ambiguities were inevitable in such a climate. The United States invaded Iraq under the “mainstream understanding” that it was deploying armed defense to protect the nation's “core values.” However, this war is not being fought in the same climate as the Cold War. No nuclear weaponry was located in Iraq, and mainstream America's “core values” have been exploited for some other purpose. The Jacksonian approach to foreign policy, then, has been discredited because it has been abused. Walter Russell Mead, who identified the four various approaches to national security, claimed that “Jacksonian political philosophy is often an instinct rather than an ideology, a culturally shaped outlook that the individual may not have worked out intellectually, a set of beliefs and emotions rather than a set of ideas.” This is also evident in the Jacksonian disdain for intellectualism (Kiersey). Had Bush reacted more ideologically and less emotionally, the Iraq debacle may have been averted.
The second subjective issue with Schmidt's argument is that of “armed defense.” Each different grand theory offers a different interpretation of the limitations associated with “armed defense.” Does the “mainstream understanding” of national security allow for first-strike wars? It must not be forgotten that both security and threats to it are conceptualized differently by each individual. For example, the Jeffersonian approach to national security stresses caution in foreign affairs and prefers “the least costly and dangerous methods” of protecting the United States in the dangerous state of globalization (Kiersey). This approach would rather avoid possible conflicts with other nations before they begin. The Wilsonian approach, however, claims that it is the United States' responsibility to bring civilization to less developed parts of the world, and in doing so, we must interact with other nation-states. Under this ideology, the United States is not immune from military threats, therefore, they must attempt to create as many democracies as possible in the world, as democracies are more reliable partners in ascertaining world peace than are tyrannies (Kiersey). The fact that there are such varying opinions on how threats are perceived only further demonstrates the need for a clear definition of “armed defense” in relation to national security.
President Obama's approach to foreign policy is mostly Wilsonian, as he recognizes how necessary it is to engage with other nation-states in pursuit of common goals. Now that the country is deeply embedded in an economic crisis, Hamiltonian ideas are making their way into new policies. This approach to foreign policy stresses the importance of industry and commerce as a way of creating peace (Kiersey). Certainly the new administration is focused on rebuilding the world's faith in American commerce. A Wilsonian approach with a hint of Hamiltonianism is most feasible for national security preservation today. The realist approach to international relations, coupled with the Jacksonian approach to national security, has expired. These emotional responses, inevitably, do not protect the “core values” in relation to human security. More intellectual, resolute analyses must now be made about national security, and, today, the Wilsonian approach is more reasonable than the other three identified by Mead.
Section 2 – Question 2
Neoconservative Ideeologies Damaged United States Foreign Policy
During George W. Bush's presidency, Neoconservative ideologies hijacked a Jacksonian view of national security in the attempt to seek moral vengeance on a major foreign policy actor. This action has had an immensely negative effect on United States foreign policy, as it has damaged the administration both domestically and internationally. Foong Khong lists the administration's biggest international failures as: “The failure to find weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, the US mistreatment of prisoners in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, and the eruption of a vicious civil war in Iraq.” Domestically, “US casualties in the inconclusive Iraq war” have damaged the American public's opinion of the administration (252). Bush surrounded himself with a host of fellow Neoconservatives, whose ideologies guided the hand of the United States government for eight long years. The United States' new administrators, and subsequently the new foreign policy actors, have the responsibility to employ a new grand theory in order to restore dignity to foreign policy.
The origins of Neoconservatism were located by Irving Kristol “among the disillusioned liberal intellecutals of the 1970s” (qtd. 253). The liberals, he explained, were disillusioned due to sharp tilt to the left following the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. This was when Jacksonian “core values” were questioned, and liberals began refusing to defend themselves regarding traditional values. Neoconservatives like Kristol found this separation from moral values to be dangerous to the political system (253).
Kristol and Robert Kagan classified Neoconservatives as “fervent anti-communists, emphasizing the ideological and moral superiority of democracy, while advocating the maintenance of a strong military” (qtd. 254). Neoconservatives will advocate bigger military budgets even in times of financial hardship just to preserve “prestige and power of the United States military” (254). More than $600 billion has been spent on the war in Iraq thanks to Neoconservative ideologies, however, the United States military is less prestigious than ever before. Both domestically and internationally, the military in Iraq is viewed as an extension of Neoconservativism.
Krisol and Kagan identified four major tenets of Neoconservative foreign policy thought. The first tenet is the Neoconservative desire for moral clarity in the international arena. Neoconservatives believe that “democratic leaders and liberal democracies are good; tyrants and tyrannical regimes are bad” (qtd. 256). Therefore, morality and the interests of the state should be joined with diplomacy, and the United States has a moral responsibility to act against foreign policy actors who threaten either the interests or the morals of the United States. Furthermore, Neoconservatives conclude that the United States, as a moral institution, has the right to pass judgment on foreign nations it considers immoral. The second tenet of Neoconservative ideology is that the United States should “preserve its military preeminence in the post-Cold War world,” capitalizing on a monopoly of power by acting as “a benevolent US hegemony (256). This also relates to the third tenet, which is that the United States “should leverage its military power” to pursue foreign policy goals. Neoconservatives are quick to employ the United States as a prominent international actor because of the fourth tenet, their skepticism about the ability of international law and institutions to bring about world peace (256-7). During Bush's presidency, all of these Neoconservative tenets were applied to foreign policy.
Foong Khong discusses the various enabling “factors” and “events” which lead to the Neoconservatives' rise to preeminence during the past eight years. First, when Bush was elected president, he appointed at least eight fellow Neoconservatives to important positions in this administration. It was at this juncture that Neoconservative political thought moved from the political fringe to the political spotlight (258). Second, 9/11 gave the Bush administration a new lease to use military force in Iraq. Targeting Afghanistan was symbolic to the preservation of moral clarity in the wake of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, and Iraq posed a similar possible threat to United States national security. Third, suspicions regarding WMDs in Iraq were announced, giving the administration further decree to take action. The one per cent doctrine cleared up any insecurities about the invasion; it stated that “even with a one percent chance of a grave threat materialzing, the US should treat that threat as a certainty and act to eliminate it” (261). One final “factor” related to the Neoconservatives' reign is that since the invasion of Iraq, they have seemingly abandoned the idea of reconstruction. They may push for forceful regime change, but they are not concerned with the idea of nation-building (262). This conflicts the Neoconservatives idea that the United States should be a benevolent arbitrator in such moral situations.
The problem with Neoconservatism is the idea of moral clarity. What is moral and in the eyes of whom? Neoconservatives maintain the United States should act as a benevelent hegemon to the world because it has the military reputation and power to do so. However, these core ideologies have been undermined by a failure to succeed in Iraq. Both internationally and domestically, there is a need for a new approach to United States foreign policy. The Bush administration's reign and the failure in Iraq is a crucial testament to the ineffectiveness of Neoconservatism in foreign policy.
Section 3
Book Review: Samantha Power's Chasing the Flame: One Man's Fight to Save the World
Chasing the Flame: One Man's Fight to Save the World by Samantha Power is the biography of Sergio Vieira de Mello, a diplomat and humanitarian whose contradictions and failures were rooted in the institution he so loyally served, the United Nations. Vieira de Mello, who climbed the UN food chain from assistant editor at the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in 1969 to Special Representative of the Secretary General in Iraq in 2003, embraced international law and the UN as elements of global justice. He insisted that the only way to bring about lasting global stability is to press countries to play by international UN rules (9). But while Vieria de Mello worked diligently to spread the UN's reach to those in need, the organization's internal contradictions consistently prevented flawless peacekeeping. Power's intention is to flush out these contradictions by telling about Vieira de Mello's experiences. Ironically, Vieria de Mello was killed in a suicide bombing attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad in August 2003, marking the end of a personal evolution that tracked the UN's achievements and failures (xviii).
Power focuses particularly on the UN's mistakes which were exposed in the genocidal crisis of the mid-1990s. Time and time again, she cites instances where the UN's authority prevented, rather than maintained or created, peacekeeping. A general ethic of strict political neutrality ended up favoring aggressors like the Hutu extremists in Rwanda and the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo. In 1994, the UN mandated that soldiers in the area were not allowed to use their weapons, even in self-defense. This lead to Hutu militias massacring some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutu (pg. xvi). In 1995, the UN discouraged the use of NATO air power to end the conflict in Bosnia, therefore prolonging the devastation on the ground. Eventually, the Croatian Army and NATO forces attacked the Serbs, and the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian men and boys was halted by the UN bombing of Serbia, proving that some conflicts cannot be solved without resort to power (xvi).
Power claims that Americans today have two principles: 1) Retreat from global engagement altogether. Or 2) Go abroad to stamp out threats in the hopes of achieving full security. By the end of the 1990s, Vieria de Mello had determined that the best route to world peace is a mixture of the two. He had also concluded, by this point, that the UN needed to shift from peacekeeping to peace enforcement as a part of a new global “responsibility to protect.” The 1990s provided foreign policy with some difficult lessons. Of most importance, hard power is sometimes needed to resolve political conflicts. Because, aside from the UN, we do not have international institutions to resolve such conflicts, the UN must be willing to take a hard line with international criminals.
While it is easy to lay blame on the UN for it's peacekeeping failures, we must realize that the nation-states behind the organization fail to supply it with adequate resources, attention and manpower. Today, as the world is watching the Iraq debacle unfold, the idea that strong countries like the US should use their power to defend human rights or promote democracy around the world has become widely debated. Now focused on an overmilitarized foreign policy, we tend to forget the lessons of the 1990s, that sometimes, hard power is necessary to resolve political conflicts. However, until we have a set of international institutions and legislation intact, this type of diplomacy cannot be effectively deployed. Power describes the UN's failures well through Vieira de Mello's biography, and she provides the substance for a healthy debate on the role of international institutions in foreign policy.
Works Cited
Foong Khong, Yuen. “Neoconservativism and the Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: The Role of Ideas in Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Ed. Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, Tim Dunne. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. 252-265.
Kiersey, Nicholas. Ohio University-Chillicothe, Chillicothe, Ohio. March 2009.
Power, Samantha. Chasing the Flame: One Man's Fight to Save the World. New York: Penguin Books, 2008.
Schmidt, Brian C. “The Primacy of National Security.” Foreign Policy: Theories, Actors, Cases. Ed. Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, Tim Dunne. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. 162-164.
Literacy Through Gaming: A Testimonial
I am a firm believer that nothing can be achieved without literacy, that literacy is the foundation upon which all good ideas are built, and that we must strive to be literate to most successfully contribute to the world in which we live. Because I am also a 27-year-old “New Millenial” (born after 1981), my concept of literacy is expanded to mediums other than print publications. Today, individuals have the opportunity to explore a variety of visual technologies to enrich their literacy. While reading and understanding information is as vital as ever, evaluating and thinking critically is also necessary to compete in today's fast-paced, globalized market. Gaming has brought a new facet to literacy, and is becoming a widely-recognized and accepted tool for promoting problem-solving and higher-order thinking. Gaming is also engaging students who might otherwise remain disengaged through active learning. I am also an aspiring educator, and I believe that we must attempt multiple methods of teaching in order to make contact with the various ways our students learn. Recently, gaming has directly affected both my literacy and the literacy of those around me. These positive encounters with the technology lead me to believe that gaming isn't just an entertainment luxury, it is an educational tool with rich potential for the development of literacy skills.
I have never been a gamer. Like every other kid I knew, I had a regular Nintendo, but I've just never had the patience for video games. Now, I have a five-year-old daughter, and she's already become more of a gamer than I ever was. About a year ago, she started expressing an interest in games, and since my husband, Nick, already had an XBox, we bought her “Lego Star Wars.” I watched in amazement as she picked up on the controls, how easily she understood the language of the game. It came natural to her. Now, the games are very 3-dimensional, and since I'm used to older, 2-D games, I have a hard time keeping up. Gracie is usually giving me orders so that I can keep up with her on screen. Now, a year later, Gracie has defeated three different versions of “Lego Star Wars,” two versions of “Lego Batman,” “Lego Indiana Jones,” and three different profiles on “My Sims Kingdom,” just to name a few. She's learned words like, “save,” “loading,” “exit,” “next,” because of the visual repetition. We most always read the stories on screen with her, and she often picks up on words all on her own.
For Christmas this year, Gracie asked for a game where she could “dress up a little character and walk around and do whatever she wanted.” We researched such a game and discovered “Animal Crossing: City Folk.” (Santa also brought Gracie a Wii this past Christmas.) This game has been an amazing bonding experience for our entire family. Each of us owns a house in our town, Graceton. The goal of the game is to continue to upgrade your house and town and develop relationships with your neighbors. The game is in real-time, so when it was winter, there was snow on the ground. Since spring is drawing nearer, now the snow has melted away and our town is green and vibrant. There are even new bugs, fish, and flowers emerging. My favorite aspect of the game is that I can drop off gifts at Nick's or Gracie's house, and when they log in to play, they can pick them up. We can also plant flowers around each other's houses or send each other letters. I never imagined myself becoming so involved with a video game, but this one is so surreal, it calls attention to the finer things in life.
Amazingly, the game has even taught Gracie the value of a dollar and the importance of diligence. She didn't want to work to pay off the first mortgage on her house on “Animal Crossing,” so I dropped her off a bag of money so that she could pay it off. The next morning, after she paid off her mortgage, her house had been renovated and was bigger, and she liked that! The next day, she was shaking fruit off the trees and running back and forth to Nook's store to sell them so that she could pay off her next mortgage and get an even bigger house! Gracie learns important lessons from her video games each and every time she plays. What's more important is that we are playing the games with her. If we accept gaming as a tool for literacy, we have to manage all aspects of the technology. I'm very cautious when I purchase games for Gracie. I do a lot of research to determine which games she will best benefit from, and which games promote the values I agree with. And when we crack open a new game, I always sit down with her as she starts playing it. Gracie appreciates this most of all; she wants someone to recognize her achievements as she plays. I think it's very important that we reward children for their gaming accomplishments, especially when they know they've put a lot of brain-power into the puzzles the games offer.
As Gracie's literacy began developing through gaming, Nick had the opportunity to spread the technology to our community. A librarian at the Garnet A. Wilson Public Library in Waverly, Nick was keenly aware of the large population of teens coming to the library, especially for technological resources like Internet use. Assuming that there would be teens in the community who would appreciate gaming at the library, he introduced Game Night. The library invested in a Wii, and Nick donated his old PS2. For nearly a year now, Nick has been hosting the event each Thursday night, and faithfully, twelve to fifteen children, teens and adults show up. One evening, after one of the initial Game Nights, Nick told me about a boy who had come to the event. At some point, he became bored with the games. “Let's go upstairs and look at some books!” he exclaimed. Nick said he thought, “Mission accomplished.” Since, Nick has payed particular attention to the Young Adult selection at the library, beefing it up with graphic novels and anime as well as Honor List books. And everything is getting checked out.
Gaming is not changing the definition of literacy, it is merely offering another tool to achieve it. If we do not utilize this tool, we will be sorely remiss. Every individual has a unique design, a unique way of absorbing information. We must expand literacy media to encapsulate all types of learners and to offer a variety of ways to learn. The New Millenials and even younger generations will inherit the future, which will be filled with a vast array of technologies. New methods of teaching and learning are now required to meet the educational needs of every individual. Gaming absolutely fits the mold for such a new method.
I have never been a gamer. Like every other kid I knew, I had a regular Nintendo, but I've just never had the patience for video games. Now, I have a five-year-old daughter, and she's already become more of a gamer than I ever was. About a year ago, she started expressing an interest in games, and since my husband, Nick, already had an XBox, we bought her “Lego Star Wars.” I watched in amazement as she picked up on the controls, how easily she understood the language of the game. It came natural to her. Now, the games are very 3-dimensional, and since I'm used to older, 2-D games, I have a hard time keeping up. Gracie is usually giving me orders so that I can keep up with her on screen. Now, a year later, Gracie has defeated three different versions of “Lego Star Wars,” two versions of “Lego Batman,” “Lego Indiana Jones,” and three different profiles on “My Sims Kingdom,” just to name a few. She's learned words like, “save,” “loading,” “exit,” “next,” because of the visual repetition. We most always read the stories on screen with her, and she often picks up on words all on her own.
For Christmas this year, Gracie asked for a game where she could “dress up a little character and walk around and do whatever she wanted.” We researched such a game and discovered “Animal Crossing: City Folk.” (Santa also brought Gracie a Wii this past Christmas.) This game has been an amazing bonding experience for our entire family. Each of us owns a house in our town, Graceton. The goal of the game is to continue to upgrade your house and town and develop relationships with your neighbors. The game is in real-time, so when it was winter, there was snow on the ground. Since spring is drawing nearer, now the snow has melted away and our town is green and vibrant. There are even new bugs, fish, and flowers emerging. My favorite aspect of the game is that I can drop off gifts at Nick's or Gracie's house, and when they log in to play, they can pick them up. We can also plant flowers around each other's houses or send each other letters. I never imagined myself becoming so involved with a video game, but this one is so surreal, it calls attention to the finer things in life.
Amazingly, the game has even taught Gracie the value of a dollar and the importance of diligence. She didn't want to work to pay off the first mortgage on her house on “Animal Crossing,” so I dropped her off a bag of money so that she could pay it off. The next morning, after she paid off her mortgage, her house had been renovated and was bigger, and she liked that! The next day, she was shaking fruit off the trees and running back and forth to Nook's store to sell them so that she could pay off her next mortgage and get an even bigger house! Gracie learns important lessons from her video games each and every time she plays. What's more important is that we are playing the games with her. If we accept gaming as a tool for literacy, we have to manage all aspects of the technology. I'm very cautious when I purchase games for Gracie. I do a lot of research to determine which games she will best benefit from, and which games promote the values I agree with. And when we crack open a new game, I always sit down with her as she starts playing it. Gracie appreciates this most of all; she wants someone to recognize her achievements as she plays. I think it's very important that we reward children for their gaming accomplishments, especially when they know they've put a lot of brain-power into the puzzles the games offer.
As Gracie's literacy began developing through gaming, Nick had the opportunity to spread the technology to our community. A librarian at the Garnet A. Wilson Public Library in Waverly, Nick was keenly aware of the large population of teens coming to the library, especially for technological resources like Internet use. Assuming that there would be teens in the community who would appreciate gaming at the library, he introduced Game Night. The library invested in a Wii, and Nick donated his old PS2. For nearly a year now, Nick has been hosting the event each Thursday night, and faithfully, twelve to fifteen children, teens and adults show up. One evening, after one of the initial Game Nights, Nick told me about a boy who had come to the event. At some point, he became bored with the games. “Let's go upstairs and look at some books!” he exclaimed. Nick said he thought, “Mission accomplished.” Since, Nick has payed particular attention to the Young Adult selection at the library, beefing it up with graphic novels and anime as well as Honor List books. And everything is getting checked out.
Gaming is not changing the definition of literacy, it is merely offering another tool to achieve it. If we do not utilize this tool, we will be sorely remiss. Every individual has a unique design, a unique way of absorbing information. We must expand literacy media to encapsulate all types of learners and to offer a variety of ways to learn. The New Millenials and even younger generations will inherit the future, which will be filled with a vast array of technologies. New methods of teaching and learning are now required to meet the educational needs of every individual. Gaming absolutely fits the mold for such a new method.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
"Through Deaf Eyes" Movie Review
"Through Deaf Eyes" is a two-hour PBS documentary that details approximately 200 years of Deaf culture in America. In this expose, Deaf individuals give their first-person accounts of how deafness has affected each of them. Six documentaries, produced by Deaf artists and filmmakers, are also featured during the film. My favorite part of viewing Through Deaf Eyes was getting to see so many native signers using American Sign Language. I am now at the half-way mark in the Deaf Studies and Interpreting program, which I am taking to fulfill a foreign language requirement, and watching and interacting with Deaf individuals is the best thing for me at this point in time. It was encouraging to pick up on so many signs that the individuals portrayed in the film used. I took my midterm after watching this film, and I actually think it helped me!
I have to say, also, that this documentary helped me reevaluate my opinions. For a while now, or as long as I've been studying DSI, I've ridden the fence when it comes to the oralism/cochlear implant debate. I've always had an appreciation for those individuals who chose to learn to communicate with the hearing world. It must take great strength and patience to do so. Those who chose to learn oral methods may also be asked to avoid the use of sign language, and that's a huge investment. After seeing the first-hand accounts this film offered, I am much more inclined to express my opposition to oralism. For the Deaf, the ability to use sign language will always prevail in the battle to achieve clear communication. It's a no-brainer. Why would we want to deter people from using sign language if it really, truly will help them communicate? Whether a Deaf individual chooses to lipread or speak or obtain a cochlear implant, sign language is a necessary tool. In the film, Kristen Harmon explained why she chooses not to use her voice. “They assume that I can hear them. And that’s the problem with speaking,” she said. “It’s a two-way communication. That’s why I don’t. I don’t want people to assume that I can hear them because I can’t. It’s much easier just to turn off my voice.” She spoke about how hard she had been working, going to school as an oralist. Eventually, she realized sign language was her language, and that it was easier and more satisfying to stick to what came natural.
I really enjoyed the comedic elements of the film. I suppose, however, these same elements may not have been so comedic for Deaf people in the past. I liked the scene with Robert Panara, who explained how his father tried everything from airplane rides to taking him to meet Babe Ruth to “shock” his hearing back into him. Next, Jack Gannon talks about how his aunt took him to a revival to cure his deafness. Of course, the religious healing didn't work, either; they said he didn't have enough faith to be cured. It amazes me that people could be so ignorant that they thought these things might help. Then again, people today are still confused about what causes deafness and how to cope with and/or cure it. I mean, we're offering cochlear implants to people when there's only a 50/50 chance the highly expensive procedure will even work. It angers me that after 200 years, we haven't found a better solution. Or if there's no solution to be found, that we haven't learned to accept deafness as a very manageable condition. We should be beyond bickering about whether ASL is a language or not, and hearing people should be better educated in Deaf Culture. While I know progress has been made in the past 200 years, there is no excuse for the injustices that continue against the Deaf still today.
Marlie Matlin's contribution to the documentary was nice, because I've always liked her (If you haven't seen What the Bleep Do We Know? you should be ashamed of yourself!). I wasn't aware of the situation she encountered the year after she won the Oscar. She attended the ceremony and was presenting the nominees for Best Actor when she chose to speak the list of names rather than signing them. Deaf people everywhere were outraged! And now I'm outraged! Yes, she was a “pioneer” for the Deaf, like Mark Morales noted in the film, but why did that all go out the window the second she chose to use her voice? This woman worked hard to get to where she did, and she should have the opportunity to communicate with others however she chooses. That's what we all need to remember: Deafness is a very personal condition, and no one but that individual has the right to decide what is best for him or her. Whether a Deaf individual chooses to use sign language only, or to obtain a cochlear implant and utilize oral methods, or to use a combination of both, it is their choice, plain and simple.
I have to say, also, that this documentary helped me reevaluate my opinions. For a while now, or as long as I've been studying DSI, I've ridden the fence when it comes to the oralism/cochlear implant debate. I've always had an appreciation for those individuals who chose to learn to communicate with the hearing world. It must take great strength and patience to do so. Those who chose to learn oral methods may also be asked to avoid the use of sign language, and that's a huge investment. After seeing the first-hand accounts this film offered, I am much more inclined to express my opposition to oralism. For the Deaf, the ability to use sign language will always prevail in the battle to achieve clear communication. It's a no-brainer. Why would we want to deter people from using sign language if it really, truly will help them communicate? Whether a Deaf individual chooses to lipread or speak or obtain a cochlear implant, sign language is a necessary tool. In the film, Kristen Harmon explained why she chooses not to use her voice. “They assume that I can hear them. And that’s the problem with speaking,” she said. “It’s a two-way communication. That’s why I don’t. I don’t want people to assume that I can hear them because I can’t. It’s much easier just to turn off my voice.” She spoke about how hard she had been working, going to school as an oralist. Eventually, she realized sign language was her language, and that it was easier and more satisfying to stick to what came natural.
I really enjoyed the comedic elements of the film. I suppose, however, these same elements may not have been so comedic for Deaf people in the past. I liked the scene with Robert Panara, who explained how his father tried everything from airplane rides to taking him to meet Babe Ruth to “shock” his hearing back into him. Next, Jack Gannon talks about how his aunt took him to a revival to cure his deafness. Of course, the religious healing didn't work, either; they said he didn't have enough faith to be cured. It amazes me that people could be so ignorant that they thought these things might help. Then again, people today are still confused about what causes deafness and how to cope with and/or cure it. I mean, we're offering cochlear implants to people when there's only a 50/50 chance the highly expensive procedure will even work. It angers me that after 200 years, we haven't found a better solution. Or if there's no solution to be found, that we haven't learned to accept deafness as a very manageable condition. We should be beyond bickering about whether ASL is a language or not, and hearing people should be better educated in Deaf Culture. While I know progress has been made in the past 200 years, there is no excuse for the injustices that continue against the Deaf still today.
Marlie Matlin's contribution to the documentary was nice, because I've always liked her (If you haven't seen What the Bleep Do We Know? you should be ashamed of yourself!). I wasn't aware of the situation she encountered the year after she won the Oscar. She attended the ceremony and was presenting the nominees for Best Actor when she chose to speak the list of names rather than signing them. Deaf people everywhere were outraged! And now I'm outraged! Yes, she was a “pioneer” for the Deaf, like Mark Morales noted in the film, but why did that all go out the window the second she chose to use her voice? This woman worked hard to get to where she did, and she should have the opportunity to communicate with others however she chooses. That's what we all need to remember: Deafness is a very personal condition, and no one but that individual has the right to decide what is best for him or her. Whether a Deaf individual chooses to use sign language only, or to obtain a cochlear implant and utilize oral methods, or to use a combination of both, it is their choice, plain and simple.
"Sound and Fury" Movie Review
Deaf people face the inability to communicate with the world on a daily basis. Technology has allowed for many tools to make common interaction less difficult for these individuals. But, still, a communication barrier exists. Now, there is technology available which lends the possibility of making a deaf person capable of hearing. No matter how promising this device sounds, deaf people and the families of deaf children face many challenges in deciding if an implant is right for them. With this new hope of hearing comes the fear of failure and the possibility of being cast out of and judged by the Deaf community. Embracing this new technology isn't simple when an individual must fear losing their cultural identity and the support of others like them.
Sound and Fury is a Public Broadcasting Service documentary that follows two families on their quest for knowledge regarding cochlear implants. Heather Artinian, an intelligent and vibrant 6-year-old, asks her parents Peter and Nina for a cochlear implant. A deaf child, she wants to be able to communicate with the hearing world. Her frustrations trying to speak to her hearing friends, along with the desire to hear noises like a baby crying and cars crashing, provoke her to ask her parents about this technology. By the end of the film, Peter and Nina, who are both deaf as well, decide that a cochlear implant is not the best idea for their daughter. Instead, they relocate to Frederick, Maryland, a town with a high population of deaf people, where they feel they and their daughter will fit in and feel more comfortable.
The film also follows Peter's brother's family as they decide if a cochlear implant is a good decision for their 1 1/2-year-old son, also named Peter. Chris and Mari Artinian, both hearing, were devastated when they found out one of their twin boys was deaf. Now, it is their primary goal to give their son the best opportunity available to be a part of both the Deaf and hearing world. They decide that now is the time to give Peter the implant, before his language skills begin developing. At the film's end, Peter undergoes surgery to obtain the implant, and we see him at his first pathology appointment. The baby responds to sounds, and we see that the implant was a success.
Extended family plays a major role in this situation. This is a deaf family, with many deaf family members. Nancy and Michael Mancini, Mari's parents, are both deaf and are very opposed to Peter's cochlear implant. Nancy expresses her fear that Peter will only grow up hearing, that he won't be able to communicate with her, and that he'll lose his cultural identity.
The elder Peter's parents, Marianne and Peter Artinian, have a very different view regarding cochlear implants. However, they are both hearing. Marianne says that the cochlear implant is the “greatest miracle in medical science,” and that “we are on the brink of a revolution for those who cannot hear.” They tried their best to encourage Peter and Nina to let Heather have an implant. However, because Peter insists that his hearing mother couldn't possibly know what a deaf person goes through, he failed to take her advice.
Both sides of the coin have many valid points. I understand how the Deaf community can be harsh, turning on its members who chose cochlear implants to be a part of the hearing world. Many times, when cochlear implants are given to a child, the child's only option is to attend a school where oralism is encouraged. This definitely does detract from the deaf cultural norm of using sign language as a primary form of communication. It would be terribly difficult to no longer belong to the Deaf community, but to still not be entirely accepted in the hearing world, either. In the film, there is a scene when Mari tells people at a Deaf picnic of her choice to implant her son. They are outraged, telling her he'll never be accepted by their community. In that very scene, her own mother calls her a “lousy daughter” based on her decision to let her son hear. But the good must be taken with the bad. Someone who makes a decision to embrace the cochlear implant is also making the decision to face adversity from their own peers. Not to mention the risk factors involved with the surgery and the possibility that there is no residual hearing left to stimulate.
On the flip side, I think Marianne has a point. Technology isn't going anywhere. As long as there is this phenomenal advancement available that poses the possibility of hearing for a deaf person, people will embrace cochlear implants. Nancy says that deaf people with implants are no better than robots, but I've seen robots do some pretty cool things. That's not necessarily all that bad, in my book. I understand the operation is risky, at best, but I think it's a nice option for families dealing with deafness and finding it difficult to fit into the Deaf world. I was impressed that such a bright, young girl would ask her parents for a cochlear implant. Although I understand their reasons, I was a little discouraged that Peter and Nina simply decided against it. And instead of finding other ways for Heather to communicate with the hearing world, they pulled her out of it and moved her to a community where she'd be immersed in Deaf culture. I'm not sure it was the best move for her, but it seemed to be the best move for them. Yes, now she'll fit in more. She'll communicate more easily with her friends, because, they, too, are deaf and sign. However, her parents have closed the door on the hearing world, and she won't be a part of it until she's old enough to do so on her own. At one point, Peter even said he didn't care about the hearing world, to forget about them. This is a very closed-minded notion when he has a daughter who wants to be a part of everything.
This is what I fear the most. I long to see a world where the hearing and the Deaf can interact freely. I'm one small voice fighting for Deaf rights. There are many like me, I know. But our work is for naught if the Deaf community keeps closing the door on us. It seems as thought they want to be outcasts, but they also like to complain about it. I know this is not typical of all deaf people, but this film definitely conveyed the prejudices toward the hearing world that are felt by many in the Deaf community. I can only hope that technology continues to advance, and that someday, cochlear implants will be a safe and reliable option for those who choose to utilize it. But, I definitely appreciate the choice to steer clear of them and to embrace one's own very special Deaf identity as well.
Sound and Fury is a Public Broadcasting Service documentary that follows two families on their quest for knowledge regarding cochlear implants. Heather Artinian, an intelligent and vibrant 6-year-old, asks her parents Peter and Nina for a cochlear implant. A deaf child, she wants to be able to communicate with the hearing world. Her frustrations trying to speak to her hearing friends, along with the desire to hear noises like a baby crying and cars crashing, provoke her to ask her parents about this technology. By the end of the film, Peter and Nina, who are both deaf as well, decide that a cochlear implant is not the best idea for their daughter. Instead, they relocate to Frederick, Maryland, a town with a high population of deaf people, where they feel they and their daughter will fit in and feel more comfortable.
The film also follows Peter's brother's family as they decide if a cochlear implant is a good decision for their 1 1/2-year-old son, also named Peter. Chris and Mari Artinian, both hearing, were devastated when they found out one of their twin boys was deaf. Now, it is their primary goal to give their son the best opportunity available to be a part of both the Deaf and hearing world. They decide that now is the time to give Peter the implant, before his language skills begin developing. At the film's end, Peter undergoes surgery to obtain the implant, and we see him at his first pathology appointment. The baby responds to sounds, and we see that the implant was a success.
Extended family plays a major role in this situation. This is a deaf family, with many deaf family members. Nancy and Michael Mancini, Mari's parents, are both deaf and are very opposed to Peter's cochlear implant. Nancy expresses her fear that Peter will only grow up hearing, that he won't be able to communicate with her, and that he'll lose his cultural identity.
The elder Peter's parents, Marianne and Peter Artinian, have a very different view regarding cochlear implants. However, they are both hearing. Marianne says that the cochlear implant is the “greatest miracle in medical science,” and that “we are on the brink of a revolution for those who cannot hear.” They tried their best to encourage Peter and Nina to let Heather have an implant. However, because Peter insists that his hearing mother couldn't possibly know what a deaf person goes through, he failed to take her advice.
Both sides of the coin have many valid points. I understand how the Deaf community can be harsh, turning on its members who chose cochlear implants to be a part of the hearing world. Many times, when cochlear implants are given to a child, the child's only option is to attend a school where oralism is encouraged. This definitely does detract from the deaf cultural norm of using sign language as a primary form of communication. It would be terribly difficult to no longer belong to the Deaf community, but to still not be entirely accepted in the hearing world, either. In the film, there is a scene when Mari tells people at a Deaf picnic of her choice to implant her son. They are outraged, telling her he'll never be accepted by their community. In that very scene, her own mother calls her a “lousy daughter” based on her decision to let her son hear. But the good must be taken with the bad. Someone who makes a decision to embrace the cochlear implant is also making the decision to face adversity from their own peers. Not to mention the risk factors involved with the surgery and the possibility that there is no residual hearing left to stimulate.
On the flip side, I think Marianne has a point. Technology isn't going anywhere. As long as there is this phenomenal advancement available that poses the possibility of hearing for a deaf person, people will embrace cochlear implants. Nancy says that deaf people with implants are no better than robots, but I've seen robots do some pretty cool things. That's not necessarily all that bad, in my book. I understand the operation is risky, at best, but I think it's a nice option for families dealing with deafness and finding it difficult to fit into the Deaf world. I was impressed that such a bright, young girl would ask her parents for a cochlear implant. Although I understand their reasons, I was a little discouraged that Peter and Nina simply decided against it. And instead of finding other ways for Heather to communicate with the hearing world, they pulled her out of it and moved her to a community where she'd be immersed in Deaf culture. I'm not sure it was the best move for her, but it seemed to be the best move for them. Yes, now she'll fit in more. She'll communicate more easily with her friends, because, they, too, are deaf and sign. However, her parents have closed the door on the hearing world, and she won't be a part of it until she's old enough to do so on her own. At one point, Peter even said he didn't care about the hearing world, to forget about them. This is a very closed-minded notion when he has a daughter who wants to be a part of everything.
This is what I fear the most. I long to see a world where the hearing and the Deaf can interact freely. I'm one small voice fighting for Deaf rights. There are many like me, I know. But our work is for naught if the Deaf community keeps closing the door on us. It seems as thought they want to be outcasts, but they also like to complain about it. I know this is not typical of all deaf people, but this film definitely conveyed the prejudices toward the hearing world that are felt by many in the Deaf community. I can only hope that technology continues to advance, and that someday, cochlear implants will be a safe and reliable option for those who choose to utilize it. But, I definitely appreciate the choice to steer clear of them and to embrace one's own very special Deaf identity as well.
"And Your Name Is Jonah" Movie Review
This week in Deaf Studies and Interpreting 111, my view of Deaf culture and the struggles deaf people encounter was widened. My classmates and I watched the 1979 CBS television movie "And Your Name is Jonah." This film was a delight, and very enlightening. It takes its viewer on an emotional roller coaster, portraying the hardships a deaf person encounters as well as the happiness that is felt upon one's accomplishments. It introduced me to many biases, opinions, and practices related to the Deaf community that I was previously unaware of. As the film began, I felt very bad for deaf persons, noticing how hard it must be just to live in a “hearing” world. By the end of the movie, however, I realized how rewarding it must be to live in such a tight-knit community where personal communication comes before anything else.
And My Name is Jonah is a story about a young boy who was misdiagnosed as retarded and institutionalized for three years. The film begins with his mother and father, both completely ignorant regarding Deaf culture, picking him up from the hospital to take him home. He is greeted at home with a surprise party thrown by his entire family. The poor child has no idea what is going on. It's just the beginning of a very confusing and strange environment for Jonah. As the film proceeds, Jonah's father leaves the family because he can't handle the pressure. He calls Jonah a “freak,” and is more concerned by what the public will think of Jonah than with actually seeking out assistance for his son. Once his father leaves, his mother is free to explore new opportunities for Jonah. She eventually decides to let Jonah learn Sign Language, a move that allows the boy to communicate with others in his life. At last, he begins to learn about the world around him.
The movie revealed many biases held by people in the Deaf community. Mrs. Marquardt, the director of Jonah's school, said, “Unfortunately, it's a hearing world ... Unfortunately for the deaf.” The only unfortunate thing about this statement is the statement itself. It really struck a chord with me. Nothing about the world has to be unfortunate for a deaf person, as long as they have caring and understanding people in their lives. This was Jonah's biggest road block. His father wanted him to disappear. He would rather send Jonah back to the hospital than deal with his condition. His mother, while seemingly caring and compassionate, didn't exhibit the willingness to understand Jonah's attempts at communication. I was really saddened by the scene where Jonah tries to tell his mother he wants a hot dog. He was pulling on her coat, desperately trying to show her what he wanted. Instead of letting him lead the way, she kept on screaming, “Jonah, I don't know what you want! I don't understand!” If she would have only gotten up quicker and let Jonah lead her to the hot dog cart, she could have bridged the communication gap. I think many times it's not the inability to understand a deaf person, it's the lack of a desire to communicate with them.
I think Jonah's father leaving was the best thing that could've happened. Once he was out of the picture, his mother was free to look outside of the box for alternatives to helping Jonah with his condition. She was more empowered to help her son because his father had been so demeaning of him, and she found new determination to live a “normal” life, or as normal as possible with a deaf child. When she saw the deaf couple and their child at speech therapy, she realized that her family could be just as happy, and that there were other ways to teach Jonah to communicate. I really liked the scene where the ladies visit the library. My husband and I both work in libraries, so I'm all about “knowledge is power.” When Jonah's mother saw the two books with opposing viewpoints side by side, she realized that there were other options to explore.
I'm glad to know that society has begun to accept Sign Language as universal and necessary. I couldn't believe the attitude of the school instructors who insisted on lip reading and speaking as opposed to a communication device as uncomplicated as signing. Especially for people like Jonah, who had no English correlate to learn from, Sign Language is a perfect visual tool to use to communicate. At the end of the movie, when the man began teaching Jonah signs, it was like putting puzzle pieces into place. Things made sense. While Jonah didn't have a word for “tree,” he now had a sign that actually visually looked like a tree. What's so difficult about that? Mrs. Marquardt said children shouldn't be taught Sign Language because they'll only be able to communicate with other deaf people. However, when Jonah tried to learn the methods taught by her school, he was unable to comprehend. It was refreshing, once he began learning to sign, to be able to communicate with anyone, not particularly deaf or speaking people.
As I said before, it must be rewarding to be a part of a community that regards personal communication above all else. In today's day in age, we rely on so many other forms of communication – television, Internet, print media and radio. It's nice to get back to the basics and to have to look someone in the eye to listen to them. Not to say that I don't treasure my hearing, but I am a tad bit jealous of the Deaf. They are immersed in such an intimate community, while today's general society is so detached and individuals are so independent. It can be quite depressing to value your personal space more than the act of sharing it with other people.
My favorite part of the movie was when Jonah's mother and her friend go to the Deaf club meeting. Most people have some sort of unfounded fear of deaf people. It was amazing to see how personable, how animated, how interesting these people are. I'm very eager to attend cultural events now that I've had a taste of what they might be like. I now understand that I don't need to be afraid of failing in the communication process. Most deaf people will be happy that I'm attempting to communicate with them in the first place. I'm sure that much patience will be allowed while I'm learning to sign proficiently. I truly can't wait to try to have a conversation with someone who is culturally Deaf, and I'm even more excited to learn more about American Sign Language.
And My Name is Jonah is a story about a young boy who was misdiagnosed as retarded and institutionalized for three years. The film begins with his mother and father, both completely ignorant regarding Deaf culture, picking him up from the hospital to take him home. He is greeted at home with a surprise party thrown by his entire family. The poor child has no idea what is going on. It's just the beginning of a very confusing and strange environment for Jonah. As the film proceeds, Jonah's father leaves the family because he can't handle the pressure. He calls Jonah a “freak,” and is more concerned by what the public will think of Jonah than with actually seeking out assistance for his son. Once his father leaves, his mother is free to explore new opportunities for Jonah. She eventually decides to let Jonah learn Sign Language, a move that allows the boy to communicate with others in his life. At last, he begins to learn about the world around him.
The movie revealed many biases held by people in the Deaf community. Mrs. Marquardt, the director of Jonah's school, said, “Unfortunately, it's a hearing world ... Unfortunately for the deaf.” The only unfortunate thing about this statement is the statement itself. It really struck a chord with me. Nothing about the world has to be unfortunate for a deaf person, as long as they have caring and understanding people in their lives. This was Jonah's biggest road block. His father wanted him to disappear. He would rather send Jonah back to the hospital than deal with his condition. His mother, while seemingly caring and compassionate, didn't exhibit the willingness to understand Jonah's attempts at communication. I was really saddened by the scene where Jonah tries to tell his mother he wants a hot dog. He was pulling on her coat, desperately trying to show her what he wanted. Instead of letting him lead the way, she kept on screaming, “Jonah, I don't know what you want! I don't understand!” If she would have only gotten up quicker and let Jonah lead her to the hot dog cart, she could have bridged the communication gap. I think many times it's not the inability to understand a deaf person, it's the lack of a desire to communicate with them.
I think Jonah's father leaving was the best thing that could've happened. Once he was out of the picture, his mother was free to look outside of the box for alternatives to helping Jonah with his condition. She was more empowered to help her son because his father had been so demeaning of him, and she found new determination to live a “normal” life, or as normal as possible with a deaf child. When she saw the deaf couple and their child at speech therapy, she realized that her family could be just as happy, and that there were other ways to teach Jonah to communicate. I really liked the scene where the ladies visit the library. My husband and I both work in libraries, so I'm all about “knowledge is power.” When Jonah's mother saw the two books with opposing viewpoints side by side, she realized that there were other options to explore.
I'm glad to know that society has begun to accept Sign Language as universal and necessary. I couldn't believe the attitude of the school instructors who insisted on lip reading and speaking as opposed to a communication device as uncomplicated as signing. Especially for people like Jonah, who had no English correlate to learn from, Sign Language is a perfect visual tool to use to communicate. At the end of the movie, when the man began teaching Jonah signs, it was like putting puzzle pieces into place. Things made sense. While Jonah didn't have a word for “tree,” he now had a sign that actually visually looked like a tree. What's so difficult about that? Mrs. Marquardt said children shouldn't be taught Sign Language because they'll only be able to communicate with other deaf people. However, when Jonah tried to learn the methods taught by her school, he was unable to comprehend. It was refreshing, once he began learning to sign, to be able to communicate with anyone, not particularly deaf or speaking people.
As I said before, it must be rewarding to be a part of a community that regards personal communication above all else. In today's day in age, we rely on so many other forms of communication – television, Internet, print media and radio. It's nice to get back to the basics and to have to look someone in the eye to listen to them. Not to say that I don't treasure my hearing, but I am a tad bit jealous of the Deaf. They are immersed in such an intimate community, while today's general society is so detached and individuals are so independent. It can be quite depressing to value your personal space more than the act of sharing it with other people.
My favorite part of the movie was when Jonah's mother and her friend go to the Deaf club meeting. Most people have some sort of unfounded fear of deaf people. It was amazing to see how personable, how animated, how interesting these people are. I'm very eager to attend cultural events now that I've had a taste of what they might be like. I now understand that I don't need to be afraid of failing in the communication process. Most deaf people will be happy that I'm attempting to communicate with them in the first place. I'm sure that much patience will be allowed while I'm learning to sign proficiently. I truly can't wait to try to have a conversation with someone who is culturally Deaf, and I'm even more excited to learn more about American Sign Language.
Why This Woman Supports Obama
History is being made in the 2008 Presidential election. For the first time ever, a political party's two front-runners are minorities, a black man verses a white woman. While both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton share basically the same political views and stand side-by-side on many of the issues, this election is a test as to whether this nation is more racist than it is sexist, and vice versa. In the end, the Democratic nominee will be decided based on character. Obama has set forth a movement to unite this nation, prompting people to work together to achieve a common goal. His biography is incredible; it seems as though he is a test-tube politician, directed to the Presidency for the purpose of ending racism. Clinton has the opportunity to represent American women, to limit sexist ideals and to show the world just how powerful a woman can be. Unfortunately, Clinton's agenda has been poorly received, and many feminists who should be the first to jump on Clinton's ship are abandoning it. I am one of these women.
While Clinton is the female front-runner in this election, she is a bad example for the feminist movement, which is already attached to negative attitudes. Mention the word “feminism,” and scowls sprawl across faces. While many legislative advancements have been made for women through this movement, man-hating women and mixed agendas have made a bad impression. Clinton has more power than any woman in our country has ever had, and she has the opportunity to change these attitudes towards feminism, but she has failed to do so, and her campaign is suffering from it.
So, why is Clinton such a bad example for American women? First of all, she represents a set of older, more traditional attitudes that have maintained the oppression of women for years. She stayed with Bill despite the cheating, lying and manipulation he brought to their marriage, supporting a “stand by your man” tradition that modern women have abandoned.
I know it's rude to say, but Clinton is flaky. She cries if necessary, changes her political stance to align herself with electorate voters, and mocks her opponents, particularly Obama. On February 24, at a campaign rally in Providence, Rhode Island, she slammed Obama for tyring to inspire hope amongst the American people, making comments that embarrassed Democrats and Republicans alike. (“Clinton Mocking Obama”). Nothing about this attitude is positive, and she's only making herself look silly and desperate with such antics.
Clinton, during this campaign, has tried too hard to be macho, to hang with the tough guys, to such an extent that it's easy to forget that she's even a woman. If she does succeed in winning the Democratic nomination and faces off against Republican nominee John McCain in November, Americans will likely answer that they'd rather have the real thing than a wannabe.
Also, on my drive home from college one day, I noticed “Hillary” political signs in the yards of Chillicotheans, who seem to very much adore the candidate. What struck me as odd is that this is the first time a candidate (in any race, I presume) has ran on her first name alone. I understand that this may be her way of distinguishing herself from her husband, but George W. Bush faced the same challenge with distinguishing himself from his father. I think this campaign plot is supposed to be cute, but it's not. It's shallow and makes her look unprofessional. I understand that Americans today want a candidate they can relate to, but time and time again Hillary exhibits her superiority to her fellow countrymen, and Obama brings a much more down-to-earth attitude to the table.
Obama may be a man in this race, but his feminist agenda is far better outlined than Cinton's. She has shunned women so that she can pit herself against the capitalistic men who have run this country for so long. Obama's focus for women is driven by his two daughters. He seems to understand that most of the women's movement today is comprised of social attitudes, and that legislation alone will not change all of these ideals. Clinton's agenda, on the other hand, consists primarily of giving businesses benefits for promoting women's rights. She's consistently an advocate for big business, and that type of fascism doesn't fit into my political opinions.
Since Clinton has struggled with being a woman in this election, she's now turning the issue against Obama for being black. She's trying to make being black worse than being female. On March 4, news reports were released stating that a new advertisement released by the Clinton campaign was altered to make Obama's skin blacker, a tactic that had Time magazine in a world of trouble a few years back. (Troutnut).
It's disheartening to see how cut-throat and nasty this campaign has become. Clinton represents the traditional Democrat, and Obama represents the progression of the party; it's inevitable that they will have and publicize their differences.
The opportunity for women to gain equal rights today is immense with Clinton at the helm. However, she fails to remember the feminist agenda, and, in fact, has taken a step away from it. I would expect a woman in her position to encourage new attitudes on war, have more sympathy for issues affecting women, children and families, and to promote unity amongst American people. It seems that Obama represents these agendas far more clearly than Clinton has or is capable of. A vote for Clinton is a step in the wrong direction, and the feminists in this country recognize that.
Works Cited
Clinton, Hillary. “Women.” New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. 7 March 2008.
Clinton Mocking Obama in Rhode Island. 2008. Video. 7 March 2008.
Obama, Barack. Remarks at the National Women's Law Center. Washington, D.C. 10 Nov. 2005. Barack Obama U.S. Senator for Illinois. 7 March 2008.
Troutnut. “Hillary's ad: debate footage doctored to make Obama blacker.” Daily Kos. 4 March 2008. 7 March 2008.
While Clinton is the female front-runner in this election, she is a bad example for the feminist movement, which is already attached to negative attitudes. Mention the word “feminism,” and scowls sprawl across faces. While many legislative advancements have been made for women through this movement, man-hating women and mixed agendas have made a bad impression. Clinton has more power than any woman in our country has ever had, and she has the opportunity to change these attitudes towards feminism, but she has failed to do so, and her campaign is suffering from it.
So, why is Clinton such a bad example for American women? First of all, she represents a set of older, more traditional attitudes that have maintained the oppression of women for years. She stayed with Bill despite the cheating, lying and manipulation he brought to their marriage, supporting a “stand by your man” tradition that modern women have abandoned.
I know it's rude to say, but Clinton is flaky. She cries if necessary, changes her political stance to align herself with electorate voters, and mocks her opponents, particularly Obama. On February 24, at a campaign rally in Providence, Rhode Island, she slammed Obama for tyring to inspire hope amongst the American people, making comments that embarrassed Democrats and Republicans alike. (“Clinton Mocking Obama”). Nothing about this attitude is positive, and she's only making herself look silly and desperate with such antics.
Clinton, during this campaign, has tried too hard to be macho, to hang with the tough guys, to such an extent that it's easy to forget that she's even a woman. If she does succeed in winning the Democratic nomination and faces off against Republican nominee John McCain in November, Americans will likely answer that they'd rather have the real thing than a wannabe.
Also, on my drive home from college one day, I noticed “Hillary” political signs in the yards of Chillicotheans, who seem to very much adore the candidate. What struck me as odd is that this is the first time a candidate (in any race, I presume) has ran on her first name alone. I understand that this may be her way of distinguishing herself from her husband, but George W. Bush faced the same challenge with distinguishing himself from his father. I think this campaign plot is supposed to be cute, but it's not. It's shallow and makes her look unprofessional. I understand that Americans today want a candidate they can relate to, but time and time again Hillary exhibits her superiority to her fellow countrymen, and Obama brings a much more down-to-earth attitude to the table.
Obama may be a man in this race, but his feminist agenda is far better outlined than Cinton's. She has shunned women so that she can pit herself against the capitalistic men who have run this country for so long. Obama's focus for women is driven by his two daughters. He seems to understand that most of the women's movement today is comprised of social attitudes, and that legislation alone will not change all of these ideals. Clinton's agenda, on the other hand, consists primarily of giving businesses benefits for promoting women's rights. She's consistently an advocate for big business, and that type of fascism doesn't fit into my political opinions.
Since Clinton has struggled with being a woman in this election, she's now turning the issue against Obama for being black. She's trying to make being black worse than being female. On March 4, news reports were released stating that a new advertisement released by the Clinton campaign was altered to make Obama's skin blacker, a tactic that had Time magazine in a world of trouble a few years back. (Troutnut).
It's disheartening to see how cut-throat and nasty this campaign has become. Clinton represents the traditional Democrat, and Obama represents the progression of the party; it's inevitable that they will have and publicize their differences.
The opportunity for women to gain equal rights today is immense with Clinton at the helm. However, she fails to remember the feminist agenda, and, in fact, has taken a step away from it. I would expect a woman in her position to encourage new attitudes on war, have more sympathy for issues affecting women, children and families, and to promote unity amongst American people. It seems that Obama represents these agendas far more clearly than Clinton has or is capable of. A vote for Clinton is a step in the wrong direction, and the feminists in this country recognize that.
Works Cited
Clinton, Hillary. “Women.” New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. 7 March 2008.
Clinton Mocking Obama in Rhode Island. 2008. Video. 7 March 2008.
Obama, Barack. Remarks at the National Women's Law Center. Washington, D.C. 10 Nov. 2005. Barack Obama U.S. Senator for Illinois. 7 March 2008.
Troutnut. “Hillary's ad: debate footage doctored to make Obama blacker.” Daily Kos. 4 March 2008. 7 March 2008.
Am I a Feminist?
I'd rather define myself as an “equal opportunist,” but if I have to, I'll agree that, yes, I am a feminist. While I assert that there are so many negative feelings attached to the word “feminist,” by definition, I am one. When I think of the word “feminist,” words such as “man-hating,” “superior,” “angry,” and “bitch” come to mind. I've had a very difficult time defining myself as a fellow feminist when these negative attitudes follow closely. This course has made me see that, despite my prejudices regarding the feminist movement, I desire women to have the same rights as men, and that I don't think total equality has yet been achieved. When I entered the class, I answered “no” to the interactive survey question, “Do you consider yourself a feminist?” Now, I have to bite the bullet and agree that I am, regardless of the connotations attached to the word.
My views on women's rights and feminism are influenced by a number of experiences I've had in my life. I was married at 19, the result of being an underprivileged young woman who thought the only way to financial stability was to get married. Unfortunately, I married a man who could easily be described as an anti-feminist, a man who thought my place was in the kitchen and his was in the bowling alley. He expected me to wait on him hand and foot, to solely take care of our daughter, and to only speak when spoken to. I endured his oppression for seven years, thinking that my daughter was better off with both parents in her life. However, when my mental health took a nosedive, I realized that it was time to break the restraints he had on me and leave. I did, and now, two years later, I'm married to a very pro-feminist man who supports each and every move I make to better myself. I've since gone back to college in order to find a profitable career, and I feel more liberated than ever before. Now, I'm in control, and despite the inequalities society presents me with, being the “queen of my castle” has made life much more enjoyable. I sometimes think it's hard for me to agree with the feminist movement because I feel like I'm making such progress that I don't personally feel the oppression that other women are faced with. However, when I think back to that very dark period of my life, I remember how important it is for oppressed women to have support.
Reviewing the sixteen types of feminism was very enlightening, not only for me to see which types of feminism I agree the most with, but also because it showed me that my political stance extends further than plain old Liberalism, which is where I thought my belief system lay. As a matter of fact, I do agree very much with the Liberal feminist point of view, believing that “all people are equal; therefore, there should be equality for all.” I agree that issues such as women's opportunities, especially in the workplace, as well as a woman's right to an abortion, are pivotal in the fight for women's rights.
My Liberal feminist opinions go hand-in-hand with the Marxist/Socialists feminist stance. I believe that many of the oppressions felt by women are the result of our political, social and economic structures, and that the capitalist, patriarchal design of our country continues to hinder the equality of women and men.
I've recently come to believe I may not be best described as a Liberal, but I am better defined as a Libertarian. As far as the Individualist or Libertarian feminism stance goes, I agree that freedom and independence is the best way for a woman to achieve equality. Women should be allowed to make their own choices without fearing consequences imposed by others. They should have total control over their body and what they do with it. And at the same time, they should not seek out privileges simply because they are the “weaker” sex. I whole-heartedly believe that less is more when it comes to government control, especially when it comes to personal choices and freedoms.
Of the various types of feminism, I would also say that I agree with certain - but not all - elements of Moderate, Standpoint, and Anarcho-feminism. Sometimes, I am quite embarrassed by the efforts of radical feminists, and I think that more often than not their notions hurt the movement. I also believe that a woman's oppression varies from case to case, and that each woman's experiences influences her amount of privilege. I know that while the typical white female is a minority in comparison to the white male that she is much more privileged than a black female. And, as Anarcho-feminism asserts, I agree that the best way to liberate women is to eliminate much of the authority that dictates how they should live.
It's amazing that each of these types of feminism mesh together for a common goal. Some of them contain such conflicting ideologies; one could easily blame this difference of opinions on the negativities attached to the feminist movement. How can a movement progress without each fighting member united on all of the issues? I guess that's why the feminist movement is so indicative of each individual woman it supports. Women have the right to be conflicting and confusing, comprised of many different qualities and ideals. We now simply need to eliminate mixed agendas to fight for a common goal.
My views on women's rights and feminism are influenced by a number of experiences I've had in my life. I was married at 19, the result of being an underprivileged young woman who thought the only way to financial stability was to get married. Unfortunately, I married a man who could easily be described as an anti-feminist, a man who thought my place was in the kitchen and his was in the bowling alley. He expected me to wait on him hand and foot, to solely take care of our daughter, and to only speak when spoken to. I endured his oppression for seven years, thinking that my daughter was better off with both parents in her life. However, when my mental health took a nosedive, I realized that it was time to break the restraints he had on me and leave. I did, and now, two years later, I'm married to a very pro-feminist man who supports each and every move I make to better myself. I've since gone back to college in order to find a profitable career, and I feel more liberated than ever before. Now, I'm in control, and despite the inequalities society presents me with, being the “queen of my castle” has made life much more enjoyable. I sometimes think it's hard for me to agree with the feminist movement because I feel like I'm making such progress that I don't personally feel the oppression that other women are faced with. However, when I think back to that very dark period of my life, I remember how important it is for oppressed women to have support.
Reviewing the sixteen types of feminism was very enlightening, not only for me to see which types of feminism I agree the most with, but also because it showed me that my political stance extends further than plain old Liberalism, which is where I thought my belief system lay. As a matter of fact, I do agree very much with the Liberal feminist point of view, believing that “all people are equal; therefore, there should be equality for all.” I agree that issues such as women's opportunities, especially in the workplace, as well as a woman's right to an abortion, are pivotal in the fight for women's rights.
My Liberal feminist opinions go hand-in-hand with the Marxist/Socialists feminist stance. I believe that many of the oppressions felt by women are the result of our political, social and economic structures, and that the capitalist, patriarchal design of our country continues to hinder the equality of women and men.
I've recently come to believe I may not be best described as a Liberal, but I am better defined as a Libertarian. As far as the Individualist or Libertarian feminism stance goes, I agree that freedom and independence is the best way for a woman to achieve equality. Women should be allowed to make their own choices without fearing consequences imposed by others. They should have total control over their body and what they do with it. And at the same time, they should not seek out privileges simply because they are the “weaker” sex. I whole-heartedly believe that less is more when it comes to government control, especially when it comes to personal choices and freedoms.
Of the various types of feminism, I would also say that I agree with certain - but not all - elements of Moderate, Standpoint, and Anarcho-feminism. Sometimes, I am quite embarrassed by the efforts of radical feminists, and I think that more often than not their notions hurt the movement. I also believe that a woman's oppression varies from case to case, and that each woman's experiences influences her amount of privilege. I know that while the typical white female is a minority in comparison to the white male that she is much more privileged than a black female. And, as Anarcho-feminism asserts, I agree that the best way to liberate women is to eliminate much of the authority that dictates how they should live.
It's amazing that each of these types of feminism mesh together for a common goal. Some of them contain such conflicting ideologies; one could easily blame this difference of opinions on the negativities attached to the feminist movement. How can a movement progress without each fighting member united on all of the issues? I guess that's why the feminist movement is so indicative of each individual woman it supports. Women have the right to be conflicting and confusing, comprised of many different qualities and ideals. We now simply need to eliminate mixed agendas to fight for a common goal.
Obama vs. McCain on Foreign Policy
As long as I've been involved in politics, I've held a strong isolationist view regarding foreign policy. Why should we be the world's police? Here in America, at home, we have enough problems to worry about: a broken educational system, a crippling health care industry, and an embarrassing divide between the rich and the poor. Wars have always seemed foolish to me, especially when we aren't being threatened directly. I never understood Vietnam and I still don't understand Iraq. I always praised Bill Clinton for his ability to sit down with world leaders and draw up treaties. I don't think I've seen George W. Bush do that once in his eight long, miserable years as president. His internationalism has made him a bully – doing what he wants when he wants to, with disregard for the opinions of his fellow world leaders.
Therefore, when this election season came about, I was excited to hear all the candidates – particularly the Democrat candidates – had to offer regarding the war in Iraq and our involvement in other nations' problems. I declared my position as a Democrat when I turned 18 and started voting. It was at that point-in-time that I realized a little bit about how the world works, and I discovered that conservatives enjoy war more than liberals. I found that conservatives get their leg up on society by practicing war and by bullying others into a corner to get what they want. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to look out for the best interest of everyone involved, for the most part (I'm not saying there aren't bad Democrats.), and are more cautious about decisions affecting millions of lives. They are more willing to reach an agreement regarding any given situation. The Republicans call it weak; I call it smart. Who wants to be a bully, anyway?
My views regarding foreign policy changed somewhat, though, once I enrolled in Political Science 103. Never before had I seen foreign policy through the Mackin lens – a very clear, honest depiction of what is really going on in the world. The picture was painted nicely for me. Our forefathers set the stage for Manifest Destiny, creating the base of a nation powerful enough to rule the world. By doing that, it has been necessary to be visible worldwide. We've made ourselves visible worldwide by positioning our military forces where necessary – currently in about 100 countries. These forces work maritime magic, making trade possible, protecting weak borders, and keeping an eye on instabilities that might soon be a threat to the homeland. Never before did I have such an appreciation for our military. Now that I understand their purpose a little better, I have great pride in our military, and am grateful for their duties abroad, even if I still think we could reduce our military involvement in certain areas of the world.
Regarding Iraq, I have been itching for a candidate to come along and promise to withdraw our troops immediately. Americans are still unsure of exactly why we are there. It has something to do with oil, something to do with vengeance, and next-to-nothing to do with counter-terrorism. For heaven's sake, it was our Central Intelligence Agency that taught these terrorists the most effective ways to blow us up. I don't buy it. Then, a miracle happened. A man named Barack Obama came along, making his bid for the Presidency. He offers a fresh, new outlook on politics, promising to clean up Washington, eliminating power-hunger and the bullying tactics the conservatives have offered for so long. He also promises to end the War in Iraq, beginning with almost immediate troop withdrawals if he is elected. This is my one problem with Obama, whom I support very strongly. Obama will not bring all of our troops home immediately. With Iran already threatening both Iraq and the United States, we cannot pull out of this conflict without creating a worse situation. If we leave Iraq in a weakened state, Iran will invade, and we will be right back to square one, but in a much deeper situation. Then, thanks to the nuclear weaponry Vice President Dick Cheney and Haliburton set them up with, we will be an obvious target for Iran. Obama says if the problem in Iraq escalates once we begin withdrawing troops, we'll just send them back in. This might work, but like Mackin says, you can't move these people around like chess pieces on a board. It's dangerous and irresponsible. Still, I want to see us out of Iraq, but I don't think even Obama can do that just yet. It's going to take time, no matter what. I think, however, that Obama can regain the trust and support of fellow countries, which, I think, is the first step to winning any conflict.
In the remainder of this essay, I will outline the foreign policy views of both Obama and his Republican opponent, John McCain. The majority of this information comes directly from each candidate's Web site.
Barack Obama on Foreign Policy
“When I am this party's nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don't like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture — because it is never ok… I will end the war in Iraq… I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”
Obama plans to end the war in Iraq with immediate troop withdrawal, bringing home one to two combat brigades each month, with all troops removed within sixteen months. He vows to build no permanent bases in Iraq, but will maintain some troops to protect our embassy and diplomats. The next step is to “press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future ... to make it clear that we are leaving.” This part of the plan requires assistance from the United Nations to discuss issues like federalism and oil revenue-sharing. The remainder of this agenda involves working with Iraq's surrounding nations to build strong borders and safe havens for Iraqi refugees. As far as Iran goes, Obama wants to sit down and talk with its leaders, a move the Bush administration has failed to attempt.
Obama also promises to crack down on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He wants to secure all loose nuclear materials throughout the world within four years, negotiate a verifiable ban on the production of new nuclear weapons, and take steps to create a world free of nuclear weapons altogether.
Obama also plans to aid foreign involvement by strengthening our military, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines. He vows to give our troops new equipment, armor, training, and skills like language training.
Obama's Web site states, “Under the Bush administration, foreign policy has been used as a political wedge issue to divide us – not as a cause to bring America together. And it is no coincidence that one of the most secretive administrations in history has pursued policies that have been disastrous for the American people. Obama strongly believes that our foreign policy is stronger when Americans are united, and the government is open and candid with the American people.”
John McCain on Foreign Policy
“I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and on our country's security. By giving General Petraeus and the men and women he has the honor to command the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq we have before us a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Those who disregard the unmistakable progress we have made in the last year and the terrible consequences that would ensue were we to abandon our responsibilities in Iraq have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election.”
McCain is clearly a military man, from military roots, and thinks that a strong military is the only way to international freedom. He says that to protect our homeland, our interests and our values, America must have the best-manned, best-equipped, and best-supported military in the world. He says that we should respond to any crisis that endangers American security militarily, and in doing so, we will prevail in any conflict we are forced to fight.
McCain is focused on fighting terrorism. He plans to do this, if elected, through quality intelligence, which he says will be used to uncover plots before they take root. He says this can be done without infringing on the rights of American citizens, and that restricting the freedoms for which our nation stands would give terrorists the victory they seek. However, with documents such as the Patriot Act, our rights are being taken away one by one. I feel that these “freedoms” are being taken away, contrary to what McCain seems to believe.
McCain also promises smarter defense spending, claiming the need to reform our defense acquisition process to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are actually spent on U.S. security rather than parochial interests. He says that military funds should be appropriated regularly, not by “emergency” supplementals that makes Congressional pork-barrel spending possible. Regarding Iraq, McCain says that the answer is not unconditional dialogues from a “position of weakness.” He says real pressure must be applied on Iran in order for it to change its behavior. Again, he insists on doing this with military posture.
In the end, I will vote for Barack Obama. While I have a greater appreciation for our military now, I still don't think forceful actions solve everything. I would like my President to exhaust every possibility necessary without going to war, and I believe Obama will do that. McCain, however, is a close second to Bush, and I'm ready to wave his administration and policies out the door. I won't be voting for four more years of the same tactics the conservatives have offered for the past eight. I honestly do understand that McCain has more military experience and that he may understand foreign policy better than Obama. However, I'm ready for a total change, and I have to hope that Obama will surround himself with leaders just as intelligent on the subject as McCain. I like Obama's approach, and to be honest, I'd take anything over the Republican school of thought in America today.
References
Associated Press. (2008, May 16.) Obama calls McCain foreign policy 'naïve.'
Barack Obama's Web site. Barack Obama's plan to secure America and restore our standing.
John McCain's Web site. National Security: A Strong Military in a Dangerous World.
John McCain's Web site. Strategy for Victory in Iraq.
Renewing American Leadership. (2007, July/August). Foreign Affairs.
Therefore, when this election season came about, I was excited to hear all the candidates – particularly the Democrat candidates – had to offer regarding the war in Iraq and our involvement in other nations' problems. I declared my position as a Democrat when I turned 18 and started voting. It was at that point-in-time that I realized a little bit about how the world works, and I discovered that conservatives enjoy war more than liberals. I found that conservatives get their leg up on society by practicing war and by bullying others into a corner to get what they want. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to look out for the best interest of everyone involved, for the most part (I'm not saying there aren't bad Democrats.), and are more cautious about decisions affecting millions of lives. They are more willing to reach an agreement regarding any given situation. The Republicans call it weak; I call it smart. Who wants to be a bully, anyway?
My views regarding foreign policy changed somewhat, though, once I enrolled in Political Science 103. Never before had I seen foreign policy through the Mackin lens – a very clear, honest depiction of what is really going on in the world. The picture was painted nicely for me. Our forefathers set the stage for Manifest Destiny, creating the base of a nation powerful enough to rule the world. By doing that, it has been necessary to be visible worldwide. We've made ourselves visible worldwide by positioning our military forces where necessary – currently in about 100 countries. These forces work maritime magic, making trade possible, protecting weak borders, and keeping an eye on instabilities that might soon be a threat to the homeland. Never before did I have such an appreciation for our military. Now that I understand their purpose a little better, I have great pride in our military, and am grateful for their duties abroad, even if I still think we could reduce our military involvement in certain areas of the world.
Regarding Iraq, I have been itching for a candidate to come along and promise to withdraw our troops immediately. Americans are still unsure of exactly why we are there. It has something to do with oil, something to do with vengeance, and next-to-nothing to do with counter-terrorism. For heaven's sake, it was our Central Intelligence Agency that taught these terrorists the most effective ways to blow us up. I don't buy it. Then, a miracle happened. A man named Barack Obama came along, making his bid for the Presidency. He offers a fresh, new outlook on politics, promising to clean up Washington, eliminating power-hunger and the bullying tactics the conservatives have offered for so long. He also promises to end the War in Iraq, beginning with almost immediate troop withdrawals if he is elected. This is my one problem with Obama, whom I support very strongly. Obama will not bring all of our troops home immediately. With Iran already threatening both Iraq and the United States, we cannot pull out of this conflict without creating a worse situation. If we leave Iraq in a weakened state, Iran will invade, and we will be right back to square one, but in a much deeper situation. Then, thanks to the nuclear weaponry Vice President Dick Cheney and Haliburton set them up with, we will be an obvious target for Iran. Obama says if the problem in Iraq escalates once we begin withdrawing troops, we'll just send them back in. This might work, but like Mackin says, you can't move these people around like chess pieces on a board. It's dangerous and irresponsible. Still, I want to see us out of Iraq, but I don't think even Obama can do that just yet. It's going to take time, no matter what. I think, however, that Obama can regain the trust and support of fellow countries, which, I think, is the first step to winning any conflict.
In the remainder of this essay, I will outline the foreign policy views of both Obama and his Republican opponent, John McCain. The majority of this information comes directly from each candidate's Web site.
Barack Obama on Foreign Policy
“When I am this party's nominee, my opponent will not be able to say that I voted for the war in Iraq; or that I gave George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; or that I supported Bush-Cheney policies of not talking to leaders that we don't like. And he will not be able to say that I wavered on something as fundamental as whether or not it is ok for America to torture — because it is never ok… I will end the war in Iraq… I will close Guantanamo. I will restore habeas corpus. I will finish the fight against Al Qaeda. And I will lead the world to combat the common threats of the 21st century: nuclear weapons and terrorism; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. And I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”
Obama plans to end the war in Iraq with immediate troop withdrawal, bringing home one to two combat brigades each month, with all troops removed within sixteen months. He vows to build no permanent bases in Iraq, but will maintain some troops to protect our embassy and diplomats. The next step is to “press Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future ... to make it clear that we are leaving.” This part of the plan requires assistance from the United Nations to discuss issues like federalism and oil revenue-sharing. The remainder of this agenda involves working with Iraq's surrounding nations to build strong borders and safe havens for Iraqi refugees. As far as Iran goes, Obama wants to sit down and talk with its leaders, a move the Bush administration has failed to attempt.
Obama also promises to crack down on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He wants to secure all loose nuclear materials throughout the world within four years, negotiate a verifiable ban on the production of new nuclear weapons, and take steps to create a world free of nuclear weapons altogether.
Obama also plans to aid foreign involvement by strengthening our military, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines. He vows to give our troops new equipment, armor, training, and skills like language training.
Obama's Web site states, “Under the Bush administration, foreign policy has been used as a political wedge issue to divide us – not as a cause to bring America together. And it is no coincidence that one of the most secretive administrations in history has pursued policies that have been disastrous for the American people. Obama strongly believes that our foreign policy is stronger when Americans are united, and the government is open and candid with the American people.”
John McCain on Foreign Policy
“I know the pain war causes. I understand the frustration caused by our mistakes in this war. And I regret sincerely the additional sacrifices imposed on the brave Americans who defend us. But I also know the toll a lost war takes on an army and on our country's security. By giving General Petraeus and the men and women he has the honor to command the time and support necessary to succeed in Iraq we have before us a hard road. But it is the right road. It is necessary and just. Those who disregard the unmistakable progress we have made in the last year and the terrible consequences that would ensue were we to abandon our responsibilities in Iraq have chosen another road. It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election.”
McCain is clearly a military man, from military roots, and thinks that a strong military is the only way to international freedom. He says that to protect our homeland, our interests and our values, America must have the best-manned, best-equipped, and best-supported military in the world. He says that we should respond to any crisis that endangers American security militarily, and in doing so, we will prevail in any conflict we are forced to fight.
McCain is focused on fighting terrorism. He plans to do this, if elected, through quality intelligence, which he says will be used to uncover plots before they take root. He says this can be done without infringing on the rights of American citizens, and that restricting the freedoms for which our nation stands would give terrorists the victory they seek. However, with documents such as the Patriot Act, our rights are being taken away one by one. I feel that these “freedoms” are being taken away, contrary to what McCain seems to believe.
McCain also promises smarter defense spending, claiming the need to reform our defense acquisition process to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are actually spent on U.S. security rather than parochial interests. He says that military funds should be appropriated regularly, not by “emergency” supplementals that makes Congressional pork-barrel spending possible. Regarding Iraq, McCain says that the answer is not unconditional dialogues from a “position of weakness.” He says real pressure must be applied on Iran in order for it to change its behavior. Again, he insists on doing this with military posture.
In the end, I will vote for Barack Obama. While I have a greater appreciation for our military now, I still don't think forceful actions solve everything. I would like my President to exhaust every possibility necessary without going to war, and I believe Obama will do that. McCain, however, is a close second to Bush, and I'm ready to wave his administration and policies out the door. I won't be voting for four more years of the same tactics the conservatives have offered for the past eight. I honestly do understand that McCain has more military experience and that he may understand foreign policy better than Obama. However, I'm ready for a total change, and I have to hope that Obama will surround himself with leaders just as intelligent on the subject as McCain. I like Obama's approach, and to be honest, I'd take anything over the Republican school of thought in America today.
References
Associated Press. (2008, May 16.) Obama calls McCain foreign policy 'naïve.'
Barack Obama's Web site. Barack Obama's plan to secure America and restore our standing.
John McCain's Web site. National Security: A Strong Military in a Dangerous World.
John McCain's Web site. Strategy for Victory in Iraq.
Renewing American Leadership. (2007, July/August). Foreign Affairs.
Frank Lloyd Wright's Robie House, Chicago, Illinois
Frank Lloyd Wright believed that a building should evoke its location. We see this not only in Falling Water, but also in the Robie House in Chicago, Illinois. This building was constructed between 1907 and 1909, and was designed as a “prarie house,” a style that was quite popular in Chicago at that time. With long, sweeping, ground-hugging lines, the house captures the expansiveness of the surrounding Midwest flatlands, truly meshing the structure with the earth around it.
Wright was inspired by Japanese organic architecture, and believed that individuals should have the right to move within a “free” space with a non-symmetrical design that interacts with its non-symmetrical surroundings. He achieved this in the Robie House with a “wandering” plan that combined both open and closed joined spaces, grouped around a central fireplace. (Fireplaces are common with Wright; he believed in the hearth's age-old domestic significance.) The home combines enclosed patios, overhanging roofs and strip windows which allow for unexpected light sources and a view of the outdoors. The result is a celebration of the third dimension, motion, and space.
The Robie House is anti-classical because its emphasis is not on form; it is not rational or simple. It is emotional and abstract and its design is far from simplistic. Wright abandoned all symmetry with the Robie House. He eliminated a facade and created a hidden front door and extended the roofs far beyond the walls. He also matched the new and abstract interior spacial arrangement to the exterior design, allowing the flow of the interior space to determine the sharp angular placement of the exterior walls.
Wright relied on the principle of continuity in his design: “Classic architecture was all fixation ... Now why not let walls, ceilings, floors become seen as component parts of each other? ... You may see the appearance in the surface of your hand contrasted with the articulation of the bony structure itself. This ideal, profound in its architectural implications ... I called ... continuity.” With a style entirely his own, Wright achieved this idea of continuity through organic architecture unmatched by any other.
Wright was inspired by Japanese organic architecture, and believed that individuals should have the right to move within a “free” space with a non-symmetrical design that interacts with its non-symmetrical surroundings. He achieved this in the Robie House with a “wandering” plan that combined both open and closed joined spaces, grouped around a central fireplace. (Fireplaces are common with Wright; he believed in the hearth's age-old domestic significance.) The home combines enclosed patios, overhanging roofs and strip windows which allow for unexpected light sources and a view of the outdoors. The result is a celebration of the third dimension, motion, and space.
The Robie House is anti-classical because its emphasis is not on form; it is not rational or simple. It is emotional and abstract and its design is far from simplistic. Wright abandoned all symmetry with the Robie House. He eliminated a facade and created a hidden front door and extended the roofs far beyond the walls. He also matched the new and abstract interior spacial arrangement to the exterior design, allowing the flow of the interior space to determine the sharp angular placement of the exterior walls.
Wright relied on the principle of continuity in his design: “Classic architecture was all fixation ... Now why not let walls, ceilings, floors become seen as component parts of each other? ... You may see the appearance in the surface of your hand contrasted with the articulation of the bony structure itself. This ideal, profound in its architectural implications ... I called ... continuity.” With a style entirely his own, Wright achieved this idea of continuity through organic architecture unmatched by any other.
Outsider Art: Adolf Wolfli
Adolf Wolfli (1864-1930) was a Swiss artist who is regarded as one of the first influences in the Art Brut or outsider art traditions. Wolfli began drawing as a psychiatric patient in the Waldau Clinic in Berne, Switzerland. His first surviving works, a series of 50 pencil drawings, were created between 1904 and 1906. In 1908, he began the creation of a semi-autobiographical epic which eventually stretched to 45 volumes, containing a total of over 1,600 illustrations. Wolfli combined musical lyrics, illustrations, and sometimes, magazine clippings, to create a kaleidoscopic effect. Almost all of his works were produced on either newsprint paper, brown packing paper, or regular drawing paper, and were designed with colored pencils.
“Hautania and Haaverianna” is a part of Wolfli's Bread Art productions. These pieces of art were the ones he created for others in exchange for colored pencils, paper, and tobacco. These single-sheet drawings were mostly composed between 1912 and 1930.
This particular work of art is as strange as Wolfli gets. From reading about his use of symbolism, I know that the crosses on the heads of the figures are strictly religious, and that the upright figure is a female. Females in Wolfli's illustrations can be identified by the fact that they are usually holding an object, this time, a bass violin.
Like most outsider artists, Wolfli created definitive lines, encouraging a one-dimensional perspective. There is no near and far to this painting, only one place for the eyes to rest. As it is abstract, there is no noticeable shading. All colors are flat and well-defined. Wolfli's use of color is interesting, as well. Most of the time, he relied on neutral tones, only using color to accent the overall illustration. Here, color is used sparingly on the bass violin. Complimenting colors are used to create a false frame around the entire work.
Although Wolfli was an untrained artist, he had a natural knack for balance. His art is very geometrical, which adds to this element. Wolfli's geometrical shapes fill up the page, utilizing every inch of space. Because he used colored pencils, the texture of his work generally depends on the type of paper he used, although he was known for using cross-hatching and other patterns throughout his pieces.
I really like Wolfli's work, especially because it reminds me of my husband, Nick. He is a songwriter, and he scrawls down his lyrics much like Wolfli did. Nick prefers to put his lyrics down with marker on nice drawing paper. He then creates illustrations to compliment the words, and sometimes uses photos or other cut-outs to decorate the page. When I looked at Wolfli for the first time, I immediately noticed the likeness to my husband's pieces. While I haven't had the opportunity yet to read Wolfli's lyrics, it is definitely something I'd like to do.
“Hautania and Haaverianna” is a part of Wolfli's Bread Art productions. These pieces of art were the ones he created for others in exchange for colored pencils, paper, and tobacco. These single-sheet drawings were mostly composed between 1912 and 1930.
This particular work of art is as strange as Wolfli gets. From reading about his use of symbolism, I know that the crosses on the heads of the figures are strictly religious, and that the upright figure is a female. Females in Wolfli's illustrations can be identified by the fact that they are usually holding an object, this time, a bass violin.
Like most outsider artists, Wolfli created definitive lines, encouraging a one-dimensional perspective. There is no near and far to this painting, only one place for the eyes to rest. As it is abstract, there is no noticeable shading. All colors are flat and well-defined. Wolfli's use of color is interesting, as well. Most of the time, he relied on neutral tones, only using color to accent the overall illustration. Here, color is used sparingly on the bass violin. Complimenting colors are used to create a false frame around the entire work.
Although Wolfli was an untrained artist, he had a natural knack for balance. His art is very geometrical, which adds to this element. Wolfli's geometrical shapes fill up the page, utilizing every inch of space. Because he used colored pencils, the texture of his work generally depends on the type of paper he used, although he was known for using cross-hatching and other patterns throughout his pieces.
I really like Wolfli's work, especially because it reminds me of my husband, Nick. He is a songwriter, and he scrawls down his lyrics much like Wolfli did. Nick prefers to put his lyrics down with marker on nice drawing paper. He then creates illustrations to compliment the words, and sometimes uses photos or other cut-outs to decorate the page. When I looked at Wolfli for the first time, I immediately noticed the likeness to my husband's pieces. While I haven't had the opportunity yet to read Wolfli's lyrics, it is definitely something I'd like to do.
Michelangelo's vs. Bernini's “David”
For this week's assignment, I chose to compare/contrast Michelangelo and Bernini's sculptures of David. Both works were subtracted from marble, and both depict David just before defeating Goliath. Both are free-standing, three-dimensional figures. However, each of these sculptures were approached quite differently, and the end result is definitely something to be analyzed.
Michelangelo's larger-than-life version of David shows the figure responding to an oncoming Goliath. He is prepared for the fight and confident of a victory. The figure shows off Michelangelo's strong comprehension of contrapposto, in which the body's axes are adjusted to indicate weight shift and the potential for actual movement. The rigidity of his limbs, the sleekness of his muscles, let the viewer know that an exhibition of David's strength is soon to come. This is the work that gave Michelangelo his fame. While “David” is seemingly motionless, the figure is foreshadowing of those that Michelangelo will go on to paint for years to come. However, the artist will do much more in the way of portraying his figures in action later on.
Bernini approached this same moment in time in a very different way, opposing notions presented by predecessors Michelangelo, Donatello, and Verroccio. He chose to show David in split-second action, slinging a stone towards the impending Goliath. The figure shows off the artist's use of implied continuum, meaning that when you look at the sculpture, you can imagine the past, present, and future events surrounding the figure you're presented with. David, in this version, is actually moving through time and space. The sculpture commands space surrounding its placement, as well. Viewing the figure leaves one anticipating an unseen Goliath, and the space around the work helps it “breathe,” adding more life to the action at hand.
Michelangelo's larger-than-life version of David shows the figure responding to an oncoming Goliath. He is prepared for the fight and confident of a victory. The figure shows off Michelangelo's strong comprehension of contrapposto, in which the body's axes are adjusted to indicate weight shift and the potential for actual movement. The rigidity of his limbs, the sleekness of his muscles, let the viewer know that an exhibition of David's strength is soon to come. This is the work that gave Michelangelo his fame. While “David” is seemingly motionless, the figure is foreshadowing of those that Michelangelo will go on to paint for years to come. However, the artist will do much more in the way of portraying his figures in action later on.
Bernini approached this same moment in time in a very different way, opposing notions presented by predecessors Michelangelo, Donatello, and Verroccio. He chose to show David in split-second action, slinging a stone towards the impending Goliath. The figure shows off the artist's use of implied continuum, meaning that when you look at the sculpture, you can imagine the past, present, and future events surrounding the figure you're presented with. David, in this version, is actually moving through time and space. The sculpture commands space surrounding its placement, as well. Viewing the figure leaves one anticipating an unseen Goliath, and the space around the work helps it “breathe,” adding more life to the action at hand.
Analysis of Theodore Gericault's "Raft of the Medusa"
Theodore Gericault's “Raft of the Medusa” depicts an actual historic event: A shipwreck that took place in 1816 off the coast of Africa. The French “Medusa” ran onto a reef and 150 of its passengers built a makeshift raft in a desperate attempt to survive. After 12 days at sea, only 15 men remained when the raft was found. Gericault's account is undeniably Romantic, depicting the horror, chaos and emotion of the tragedy.
Line, form, shape, and balance all go hand-in-hand in this painting, which is why I adore it. A jumble of writhing bodies lay on the bottom of the painting. Many of these are corpses, representing the suffering, despair and death the passengers encountered. As the eye moves upward, the painting “comes to life.” From bottom to top, you see death, the struggle to cling to life, and the vibrant attempt to signal rescue by means of a tiny ship sailing in the distance. This scene is arranged in a powerful X-shaped composition. A light-filled diagonal axis crosses from the bodies at the lower left to the man on top of his raft-mates' shoulders waving a piece of cloth. Another axis, dark and shadowy, crosses the opposite side of the painting, descending from the storm clouds clear down to the shadowed upper torso of the body falling out into the sea at the bottom right corner of the painting. Space is compounded by the angular corner of the raft jutting into the lower portion of the painting, with bodies falling into the viewer's lap.
Gericault's use of color is subdued yet striking. He use of tenebrism, or extreme lights and darks, create an eerie, tragic feeling. The lightest lights reflect off of the writhing bodies, struggling to survive. The darkest darks, one can assume, are only covering up more death and destruction. This use of light causes the eye to move from one body to the next. To me, the eye first lands at the bottom of this painting, with bodies falling into your lap. The eye is then drawn upward by the use of light and angularity, until it finally rests of the scene's promise of hope and rescue. All of this incorporates a beautiful balance and focal point.
Line, form, shape, and balance all go hand-in-hand in this painting, which is why I adore it. A jumble of writhing bodies lay on the bottom of the painting. Many of these are corpses, representing the suffering, despair and death the passengers encountered. As the eye moves upward, the painting “comes to life.” From bottom to top, you see death, the struggle to cling to life, and the vibrant attempt to signal rescue by means of a tiny ship sailing in the distance. This scene is arranged in a powerful X-shaped composition. A light-filled diagonal axis crosses from the bodies at the lower left to the man on top of his raft-mates' shoulders waving a piece of cloth. Another axis, dark and shadowy, crosses the opposite side of the painting, descending from the storm clouds clear down to the shadowed upper torso of the body falling out into the sea at the bottom right corner of the painting. Space is compounded by the angular corner of the raft jutting into the lower portion of the painting, with bodies falling into the viewer's lap.
Gericault's use of color is subdued yet striking. He use of tenebrism, or extreme lights and darks, create an eerie, tragic feeling. The lightest lights reflect off of the writhing bodies, struggling to survive. The darkest darks, one can assume, are only covering up more death and destruction. This use of light causes the eye to move from one body to the next. To me, the eye first lands at the bottom of this painting, with bodies falling into your lap. The eye is then drawn upward by the use of light and angularity, until it finally rests of the scene's promise of hope and rescue. All of this incorporates a beautiful balance and focal point.
Analysis of Pablo Picasso's “Girl Before a Mirror”
“Girl Before a Mirror” is unmistakable as a Picasso. Line and style gives it all away. The form of the painting and its color edges are hard and well-defined by the use of outlining. Curved and straight lines are juxtaposed against one another. This arrangement of lines creates an effect that is crisp and strong, catching the viewer's attention and holding it there as the eye follows one bold line to another.
Picasso's use of the color palette makes this work of art stunning. He uses both lights and darks broadly, with the majority of his focus on strong contrast, posing the darkest darks against the lightest lights to create a striking effect. Opposing warm and cool colors alike in the girl and her reflection make this piece very thought-provoking. Which two sides of this girl is he depicting? The girl on the inside and the girl on the outside? Her day-self and her night-self? Regardless, there is contrast present, which lets us know that the girl herself possessed a contrasting personality.
When speaking of Picasso's use of brush stroke in “Girl Before a Mirror,” one must rather speak of the lack thereof. The brush stroke is unobtrusive and not very noticeable. The vibrant areas, where you would normally notice brush stroke, are mostly flat, without texture.
At one point in his career, Picasso became absorbed in the idea of finding a new way to represent figures in their interior space. Instead of representing figures as stand-alone subjects, he mastered the art of fracturing their shapes and interweaving them with jagged planes in the space surrounding them. While he created a rather patterned backdrop for “Girl Before a Mirror,” he combined the space between the girl and the mirror itself, almost meshing the two together as one form.
Picasso's use of the color palette makes this work of art stunning. He uses both lights and darks broadly, with the majority of his focus on strong contrast, posing the darkest darks against the lightest lights to create a striking effect. Opposing warm and cool colors alike in the girl and her reflection make this piece very thought-provoking. Which two sides of this girl is he depicting? The girl on the inside and the girl on the outside? Her day-self and her night-self? Regardless, there is contrast present, which lets us know that the girl herself possessed a contrasting personality.
When speaking of Picasso's use of brush stroke in “Girl Before a Mirror,” one must rather speak of the lack thereof. The brush stroke is unobtrusive and not very noticeable. The vibrant areas, where you would normally notice brush stroke, are mostly flat, without texture.
At one point in his career, Picasso became absorbed in the idea of finding a new way to represent figures in their interior space. Instead of representing figures as stand-alone subjects, he mastered the art of fracturing their shapes and interweaving them with jagged planes in the space surrounding them. While he created a rather patterned backdrop for “Girl Before a Mirror,” he combined the space between the girl and the mirror itself, almost meshing the two together as one form.
Book Log: "Hole in My Life" by Jack Gantos
Part A: Book Summary
Hole in My Life by Jack Gantos
Non-Fiction Book
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004, 200pgs., $16.00
ISBN 978-0374430894
Best known as the author of the Joey Pigza, Jack Henry, and Rotten Ralph children's series, Jack Gantos explores much more grown-up themes in Hole In My Life, a personal memoir of the author's incarceration as a young adult. The book explores mature subject matter and should be reserved for more sophisticated young readers. In particular, there are two violent sex scenes in the novel, and drug content is a major premise. Parents should be included in the decision to assign this book.
At the age of 20, Gantos could only be labeled an “aspiring” writer. He wrote all the time, but nothing significant. He had no method for arranging his thoughts, and a recent affection for a bowl of hashish had lead to severe procrastination. Stuck in a vicious cycle of smoking hash and dope, drinking too much alcohol, and writing whatever flowed out of the newly opened doors of perception, Gantos realized he had to get it together. Someone once said, “Do what you know,” and Gantos knew drugs. He decided to try his hand at the profit-making side of the business, and struck up a deal to smuggle 2,000 pounds of hash from St. Croix to New York. St. Croix is located in the Virgin Islands, where the drug is legal. Gantos thought his cut of $10,000 would be a nice down payment on a college education, and didn't see any harm nor fowl in the deed.
While on the journey, Gantos detailed the trip in the ship's log. He saw it as a nice way to relax. He had no idea his beloved pastime would land him in prison. Shortly after reaching the north eastern coast, Gantos was arrested for his role in the drug deal. In court, he pleaded guilty and hoped for probation, but the ship's log, which had been recovered during a search of the vessel, revealed Gantos' confession.
In prison, Gantos witnessed unimaginable acts of inhumanity. On his first day, he was faced with either helping a young man who'd just been gang raped in the bathroom or leaving him behind for personal fear of becoming the next target. “It was just twenty-four hours since I had been sentenced and I knew I was in way over my head,” he wrote. (Pg. 153) During his stay in prison, Gantos worked as an x-ray technician and was exposed to many acts of prison violence, as he worked to identify and heal inmates who had been involved in brawls and other incidents.
In his spare time, Gantos recorded his daily events between the lines of a copy of The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. He soon gained a new lease on life, even refraining from drug use in prison. He longed to get back to the real world, to try again. He wanted to go to college more than anything, so he hatched an escape plan. Gantos' escape plan, however, was based on intellect, and this time, he didn't fail. With the help of his caseworkers, Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Bow, Gantos applied for college and was accepted, and then he drafted a letter to the parole board asking them to grant his parole so that he may attend. Fifteen months after entering the penitentiary, he was released.
After leaving prison, Gantos moved to New York, got a job and an education, and eventually, became a very successful author. “The mistakes I made, the pain I endured, the time I wasted were now the smallest part of me,” Gantos wrote in the book's concluding statements. (Pg. 199) “And I'm out in the open doing what I have always wanted to do. Write.” (Pg. 200)
Three quotes:
“He had helped to sail a boatload of hashish from the Virgin Islands to New York City, where he used a shopping cart to make the deliveries that his employers, Ken and Hamilton, had set up.” (Pg. 291)
While I'm very happy that the text references Hole In My Life, I'm very, very annoyed that they got the information wrong! Gantos' employers' names were Rik and Hamilton, not Ken and Hamilton! A previous editor, this really bothered me. I really just used this quotation analysis as an opportunity to point that out! I do think it is fantastic that this book stuck out as a favorite of the authors' in recent years.
“...he said that the book was as much a cautionary tale for adults as for kids. He wants adults to get the message that we should not give up on kids who are in trouble.” (Pg. 291)
This book certainly speaks to both young and old readers. The story is a cautionary tale for people of all ages because people of all ages make stupid decisions. That's exactly what happened to Gantos. And because he made a stupid decision, the court ruled against him. Not even his youthful age could save him from the jury's conviction. Gantos speaks to both young adults who have not yet had the opportunity to destroy the lives ahead of them, and to more mature individuals who may be faced with serving as a juror in a case against a youngster some day. High school educators should especially benefit from Gantos' message because they are in the prestigious position to have a positive influence on young adults faced with life decisions like Gantos.
“The success of personal experience books ... depends largely on the quality of the writing because there isn't a plot for readers to get excited about...” (Pg. 293)
Gantos' writing is lively, and he weaves a very exciting plot throughout Hole In My Life, regardless of what this statement says. The organization of the book is a little strange, and Gantos jumps back and forth in his story a few times. It works, though, and the story comes together nicely, and honestly, quite impressively. I really enjoyed this author's voice, and I would be very interested to read his works for younger children.
Part B: Creative Response
My Cautionary Tale
I thought, as a tribute to Jack Gantos, the once aspiring, now amazing writer, I would write my own “cautionary” tale, one that might both relieve me to get it all down and inspire others in situations similar to mine.
Almost nine years ago, I graduated from high school, and had absolutely no idea what to do with my life. I was the eleventh smartest student in my class, and I had just received a measly $500 scholarship to go to college and major in English. My parents, who, bless their hearts, only possessed high school diplomas, didn't know squat about getting their child into college; nor did they care. They thought I was smart enough already. I'd won the county spelling bee in eighth grade, for Christ's sake! I was a quiz bowl genius for a while! I was basically a straight-A kid! Surely, I knew enough about the world already, and I should just proceed to working so that I could generate an income. That's what my parents thought, anyway.
Their stern hands sent me into the arms of man I would marry at the age of 19, a man who would prove to be more stern than I can remember Mom and Dad ever being. The day after our wedding, I knew it was a mistake. He changed like night giving way to the day. I've read before that there is a characteristic male who, once he marries a woman, thinks he possesses her. I think he may have fit in that classification. The most positive thing that happened to me during this time is that, a year after graduating high school, I enrolled in college. I figured it out on my own and got in. But I didn't know what I was doing and used up credits that wouldn't count for a thing in the future. I was also in many classes with my husband, and he made me cry in public all the time, so college then was just no fun. After a couple years of fighting, we decided the best way to fix our marital issues was to have a child. (I would never call this particular decision a mistake, because I am forever grateful for our bright and beautiful five-year-old daughter. But, my life soon took a direction I did not expect. This could be a cautionary tale. I'm happy things turned out the way they did; I can handle it. But, some might not want their plans put on hold and for their life to take the route mine did.)
During this time, to support our family, I also took a job at our local newspaper. I started out making telemarketing calls from the office in the evenings for minimum wage, then was hired on as the legal clerk. One day, I looked upstairs, towards the editor's office, and said, “I want that.” Soon after, I was moved to a news desk, then a paginator's, then the editor's. I served as editor for three years, during which time I helped to vanquish a publisher who squandered money from the company by the truckloads. I also served on a corporate committee, with honest-to-god corporate managers. (I suppose they considered me one, too, since they selected me.) But in my house, at my newspaper, I had reached a “glass ceiling,” if you will. I was making a very low salary compared to other editors at papers my size and circulation, and upper management (all four layers of it) wasn't budging on the budget. I was fed up. I couldn't move up the ladder to a more prestigious news network, like Gannett, either, because they hire applicants with degrees, and I had none. I had put that all on hold three years prior when I took the editor's position and became pregnant. I couldn't do all three at the same time.
The marriage sent me into a downward spiral. I was manic depressive and stayed in the crazy hospital to get my medicines regulated a total of three times. The last time I was in there, I told them I couldn't go home without knowing that things would be different this time. I felt, all along, that I wasn't my problem, that my problems were my problem. They met with him and, I suppose he didn't get it. My husband told me he'd give me a week, to see how I acted after that, and then he'd decide if our marriage was worth saving. He obviously thought I was the problem, but it's funny – no one else in our lives thought I was.
One night (he worked the midnight shift and had been sleeping all day), he woke up for work, and I had cooked him Beenie Weenies and macaroni and cheese for dinner. This is the same man whom I'd seen on several occasions pour Beenie Weenies in a can, fresh from the gas station without microwaving, down his through because he didn't have a spoon. But tonight, he didn't want measly Beenie Weenies and mac and cheese. Man want meat and potatoes! He yelled at me, told me what a worthless bitch I was, and stormed off for work. By the time he called me to apologize, I had called my mother and asked her if leaving was the right thing to do. But I had already decided, by the time I dialed her number, that I was going to leave. When he called, I told him, somberly but defiantly, that I could no longer live this way and was going to divorce him.
We worked as a team to move of our apartment together, at the same time; I got a new place and he moved back in with his mother. We elected shared parenting of our daughter. He keeps her half the week, I keep her the other half. No one pays anyone anything. Today, we have a pretty stable relationship. It's all business with us. We're in the business of rearing a child together, and we work fine at that.
Soon after my divorce was final, I remarried to a man who nourishes my creative and intellectual sides, who supports virtually every decision I make, and who keeps me on track when I'm about to make or have made a bad one. Having been through a horrible relationship, I soon found out exactly what it was that I wanted in one. My husband today fits all the necessary criteria and then some. We just celebrated our second anniversary, and I seriously do still get butterflies when I think of him. In April of last year, I vacated my position at the paper to go back to college and pursue my degree in English. Since, I've earned a scholarship that pays pretty much all of my tuition and will as long as I desire to pursue education. I'm working as a writing tutor at my branch campus, and think I really have found my niche. I'm now looking forward to the possibility of obtaining my master's degree and maybe even teaching. Libraries are appealing to me as well. The thing is, so many doors have opened up for me! Best of all, I feel more vibrant and confident than I have in a long time. I haven't been treated for mental illness for over two years now, and I feel good about that, too. I know I wrote this as “My Cautionary Tale,” but I'm so satisfied with how my life has turned out, I don't know if caution is necessary. I suppose I'm well aware of the fact that won't kill one can make her stronger. I'm proud of my battle scars, and I'm a stronger person because of them. So, cautionary? Take it as you will. It's all in how much you enjoy the roller coaster of life.
Part C: Critical Response
1. Nonfiction helps students to read for “the application of facts/detail in the development and interpretation of thought.” What particular facts or details stand out in the book you read—were surprising or interesting—and what assertions did they support. Three examples would be nice here.
I'm going to focus here on Gantos' literary references. There are many details in the book that prove its historical accuracy, so I think lending credit to Gantos' intelligence regarding literature is called for.
Page 30 - “I wasn't buying it. It seemed to me that no amount of forgiveness would ever was away his need to be forgiven every day. He reminded me of the Flannery O'Connor story I loved, “ A Good Man is Hard to Find,” where the Misfit shoots the hugely annoying grandmother to death and then says she would have been a good woman, if somebody had been there to shoot her every minute of her life.”
I like this reference because I really love O'Connor's short story. Gantos makes this statement after watching a high school assembly where four prison inmates told their (highly staged) stories, and one of the men talks about his life as a sex criminal. The man half-heartedly breaks out in a plea for forgiveness, and Gantos makes this entertaining remark.
Page 158 – Gantos references a Zane Grey cowboy novel which was brought to him with a variety of other items by a service worker in the prison. This interests me because recently, my father-in-law read a Zane Grey triology and he was very wrapped up in it for some time. Grey was an Ohio native with ties to the Slone family. I thought it was neat to see the author referenced. In Hole In My Life, the presence of the cowboy novel is amusing, instilling suggestions of the Wild West in comparison to prison life.
Pages 138-139 - “Okay,” I said to myself. “Remember this spot and then this map.” I took thirty-nine steps to the west because I liked the movie The Thirty-nine Steps.” Then I took twenty steps north, one for each year of my life. That brought me into the bushes. “Take Fifteen Steps to Better Writing to the west then turn around and dig,” I whispered.
This is just a funny passage because Gantos created directions for finding where he buried a stash of hash by stringing together book titles. Clever, catchy, and I might just take him up on the Fifteen Steps to Better Writing reference.
2. A retired teacher, Ethel Webb, helped Hirth to see that nonfiction could allow him to “build a world and take command of my life.” What, in your book, connected to your life? If the book did not seem to work this way for you, why not? How, in other words, did your book help you to “make sense of the world.”
I connected to the book because I understood both Gantos' motivation to sell drugs and his writerly woes. First of all, my parents both barely earned their high school educations, and thought that I was smart enough, didn't need to go to college, and should get a job as soon as possible. They didn't know anything about college, and weren't about to learn how to help me go. The guidance counselor at my school was only concerned with sending the valedictorians in our class to college (even though they were the ones with full ride scholarships), and I was only 11th in my class. But I digress. My point is that I understand what it's like to be a young person on the verge of becoming a real, live, full-fledged adult. It's a scary time, and, like Gantos, I didn't know what I should do with my life. I had to live through a tumultuous first marriage, the birth of my daughter, a five-year job as the editor of a newspaper, my role in taking down an embezzling corporate manager, and getting remarried before getting back to college. It feels good, Jack, I know.
I also connected to Gantos because, while I'm not doing drugs all day long, I can't get my thoughts down in a coherent pattern, either. When it comes to writing for pleasure, I can't get myself motivated to write something I'm truly interested in. I'm a little hard on myself, too. I'm an awful critic and terribly cynical and it reflects in the amount of material I produce. Perhaps I'll have more room for leisurely writing once degrees are obtained. I'm glad Gantos finally got it together.
3. Hirth says “Whether you read a short passage…give a brief comment on why you found the excerpt exciting.” Please do that. Any passage from the book and why it was “exciting.”
Oh, I'm going to have to do a very controversial one. This just happened to be the one scene in the book that really made my jaw drop. It took my by surprise. Gantos' voice made it great; he's a fantastic story-teller. In this scene, a representative of the Muslim community at the prison approaches Gantos, a new inmate, and extends to him an offer to establish good race relations with their group members.
“So here is our offer,” he said. “Every Sunday is movie night up in the gym. During the movie the Muslim brothers will all gather in the bathroom for a little prayer meeting. What we would like once you are released into population is for you to join us in a ceremony of trust. Come meet the brothers and then we want you to pull your pants down around your knees and bend over.” (Pg. 160)
Additionally amusing is Gantos' response: “...I flipped open my journal and wrote down everything that had just happened. Nobody would believe it. I couldn't. That's why I had to write it down.” (Pg. 161) Gantos' astonishment and disbelief almost adds comic relief, although the subject matter is far from funny. Because Gantos was able to weasel his way out of the situation, as well, helps make the reader feel more comfortable at laughing with the author at this awkward and frightening situation. It's just the kind of scene you'd expect to see in a prison story, and I think Gantos, as a very intelligent writer, knows that and allows for the cliched reference.
4. He continues “just pass out a copy of a passage to be analyzed.” Choose a passage and talk about the writer’s style: verb use, figurative language, level of diction, sentence length, concrete sensory imagery—anything you can note.
“ In my writing classes, I first wrote brutal stories about prison, about New York street life, about the men I knew who had hard lives and hard hearts. And then one day I got tired of all the blood and guts and hard lives and hard hearts and began to write more stories about my childhood, like the ones I had started writing down in prison, stories which at one time I did not think were important, but suddenly had become to me the most important stories of all. They contained the hidden days of my innocence and happiness. And once I began retrieving the lost pleasures of my childhood, I began to write stories for children. And I laughed about that, too. Prison certainly wasn't funny, but with each new day it was receding into my past.” (Pg. 199)
There is beautiful parallelism displayed in this passage by Gantos. It reads like poetry. The yellow highlighted words, of course, are identical. Next, there are two instances of the phrase, “heard lives and hard hearts,” followed by a mix-up of the phrase, “important stories.” The passage ends with all words associated with positivity. Words like “innocence,” “childhood,” “pleasures,” and “laughed” help the author end his book on a high note.
5. I love Hirth’s sentence: “We teach less about more rather than more about less. We get so caught up in the what, that we forget the why. Only test makers are into recall.” How did your book address the why rather than the what?
Wow. I can't believe how perfectly this book does exhibit this question. Take a look at the following passages. Gantos' friend, Tim Scanlon, a medical student at Florida State, is going on and on about the ideology that all behavior is chemical and that the books he's reading in college is “the future.”
“It will take you back to the why of everything. Remember when you were a little kid and kept asking why and your parents gave you some half-baked answers? Well, these books get down to the root of the why. If you understand this stuff you will understand everything – religion, politics, psychology, art – the history of all human desire is entirely in our chemistry.” (Pg. 44)
And Gantos replies: “He knew great stuff about biology and chemistry and medicine. I knew something about literature and what people plotted in their hearts and thought and suspected, but he knew the secret why behind each though. I only knew how it looked once it happened, once it went splat in my face, and suddenly I wanted to know the why to everything. It seemed the most important desire I'd ever known.” (Pg. 45)
Gantos makes it abundantly clear that it's best to pursue why rather than what. I'm sure he hopes this message makes it through to his readers.
Jack Gantos is also the author of The Joey Pigza Books which include Joey Pigza Swallowed the Key, Joey Pigza Loses Control, and What Would Joey Do?
Hole in My Life by Jack Gantos
Non-Fiction Book
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004, 200pgs., $16.00
ISBN 978-0374430894
Best known as the author of the Joey Pigza, Jack Henry, and Rotten Ralph children's series, Jack Gantos explores much more grown-up themes in Hole In My Life, a personal memoir of the author's incarceration as a young adult. The book explores mature subject matter and should be reserved for more sophisticated young readers. In particular, there are two violent sex scenes in the novel, and drug content is a major premise. Parents should be included in the decision to assign this book.
At the age of 20, Gantos could only be labeled an “aspiring” writer. He wrote all the time, but nothing significant. He had no method for arranging his thoughts, and a recent affection for a bowl of hashish had lead to severe procrastination. Stuck in a vicious cycle of smoking hash and dope, drinking too much alcohol, and writing whatever flowed out of the newly opened doors of perception, Gantos realized he had to get it together. Someone once said, “Do what you know,” and Gantos knew drugs. He decided to try his hand at the profit-making side of the business, and struck up a deal to smuggle 2,000 pounds of hash from St. Croix to New York. St. Croix is located in the Virgin Islands, where the drug is legal. Gantos thought his cut of $10,000 would be a nice down payment on a college education, and didn't see any harm nor fowl in the deed.
While on the journey, Gantos detailed the trip in the ship's log. He saw it as a nice way to relax. He had no idea his beloved pastime would land him in prison. Shortly after reaching the north eastern coast, Gantos was arrested for his role in the drug deal. In court, he pleaded guilty and hoped for probation, but the ship's log, which had been recovered during a search of the vessel, revealed Gantos' confession.
In prison, Gantos witnessed unimaginable acts of inhumanity. On his first day, he was faced with either helping a young man who'd just been gang raped in the bathroom or leaving him behind for personal fear of becoming the next target. “It was just twenty-four hours since I had been sentenced and I knew I was in way over my head,” he wrote. (Pg. 153) During his stay in prison, Gantos worked as an x-ray technician and was exposed to many acts of prison violence, as he worked to identify and heal inmates who had been involved in brawls and other incidents.
In his spare time, Gantos recorded his daily events between the lines of a copy of The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. He soon gained a new lease on life, even refraining from drug use in prison. He longed to get back to the real world, to try again. He wanted to go to college more than anything, so he hatched an escape plan. Gantos' escape plan, however, was based on intellect, and this time, he didn't fail. With the help of his caseworkers, Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Bow, Gantos applied for college and was accepted, and then he drafted a letter to the parole board asking them to grant his parole so that he may attend. Fifteen months after entering the penitentiary, he was released.
After leaving prison, Gantos moved to New York, got a job and an education, and eventually, became a very successful author. “The mistakes I made, the pain I endured, the time I wasted were now the smallest part of me,” Gantos wrote in the book's concluding statements. (Pg. 199) “And I'm out in the open doing what I have always wanted to do. Write.” (Pg. 200)
Three quotes:
“He had helped to sail a boatload of hashish from the Virgin Islands to New York City, where he used a shopping cart to make the deliveries that his employers, Ken and Hamilton, had set up.” (Pg. 291)
While I'm very happy that the text references Hole In My Life, I'm very, very annoyed that they got the information wrong! Gantos' employers' names were Rik and Hamilton, not Ken and Hamilton! A previous editor, this really bothered me. I really just used this quotation analysis as an opportunity to point that out! I do think it is fantastic that this book stuck out as a favorite of the authors' in recent years.
“...he said that the book was as much a cautionary tale for adults as for kids. He wants adults to get the message that we should not give up on kids who are in trouble.” (Pg. 291)
This book certainly speaks to both young and old readers. The story is a cautionary tale for people of all ages because people of all ages make stupid decisions. That's exactly what happened to Gantos. And because he made a stupid decision, the court ruled against him. Not even his youthful age could save him from the jury's conviction. Gantos speaks to both young adults who have not yet had the opportunity to destroy the lives ahead of them, and to more mature individuals who may be faced with serving as a juror in a case against a youngster some day. High school educators should especially benefit from Gantos' message because they are in the prestigious position to have a positive influence on young adults faced with life decisions like Gantos.
“The success of personal experience books ... depends largely on the quality of the writing because there isn't a plot for readers to get excited about...” (Pg. 293)
Gantos' writing is lively, and he weaves a very exciting plot throughout Hole In My Life, regardless of what this statement says. The organization of the book is a little strange, and Gantos jumps back and forth in his story a few times. It works, though, and the story comes together nicely, and honestly, quite impressively. I really enjoyed this author's voice, and I would be very interested to read his works for younger children.
Part B: Creative Response
My Cautionary Tale
I thought, as a tribute to Jack Gantos, the once aspiring, now amazing writer, I would write my own “cautionary” tale, one that might both relieve me to get it all down and inspire others in situations similar to mine.
Almost nine years ago, I graduated from high school, and had absolutely no idea what to do with my life. I was the eleventh smartest student in my class, and I had just received a measly $500 scholarship to go to college and major in English. My parents, who, bless their hearts, only possessed high school diplomas, didn't know squat about getting their child into college; nor did they care. They thought I was smart enough already. I'd won the county spelling bee in eighth grade, for Christ's sake! I was a quiz bowl genius for a while! I was basically a straight-A kid! Surely, I knew enough about the world already, and I should just proceed to working so that I could generate an income. That's what my parents thought, anyway.
Their stern hands sent me into the arms of man I would marry at the age of 19, a man who would prove to be more stern than I can remember Mom and Dad ever being. The day after our wedding, I knew it was a mistake. He changed like night giving way to the day. I've read before that there is a characteristic male who, once he marries a woman, thinks he possesses her. I think he may have fit in that classification. The most positive thing that happened to me during this time is that, a year after graduating high school, I enrolled in college. I figured it out on my own and got in. But I didn't know what I was doing and used up credits that wouldn't count for a thing in the future. I was also in many classes with my husband, and he made me cry in public all the time, so college then was just no fun. After a couple years of fighting, we decided the best way to fix our marital issues was to have a child. (I would never call this particular decision a mistake, because I am forever grateful for our bright and beautiful five-year-old daughter. But, my life soon took a direction I did not expect. This could be a cautionary tale. I'm happy things turned out the way they did; I can handle it. But, some might not want their plans put on hold and for their life to take the route mine did.)
During this time, to support our family, I also took a job at our local newspaper. I started out making telemarketing calls from the office in the evenings for minimum wage, then was hired on as the legal clerk. One day, I looked upstairs, towards the editor's office, and said, “I want that.” Soon after, I was moved to a news desk, then a paginator's, then the editor's. I served as editor for three years, during which time I helped to vanquish a publisher who squandered money from the company by the truckloads. I also served on a corporate committee, with honest-to-god corporate managers. (I suppose they considered me one, too, since they selected me.) But in my house, at my newspaper, I had reached a “glass ceiling,” if you will. I was making a very low salary compared to other editors at papers my size and circulation, and upper management (all four layers of it) wasn't budging on the budget. I was fed up. I couldn't move up the ladder to a more prestigious news network, like Gannett, either, because they hire applicants with degrees, and I had none. I had put that all on hold three years prior when I took the editor's position and became pregnant. I couldn't do all three at the same time.
The marriage sent me into a downward spiral. I was manic depressive and stayed in the crazy hospital to get my medicines regulated a total of three times. The last time I was in there, I told them I couldn't go home without knowing that things would be different this time. I felt, all along, that I wasn't my problem, that my problems were my problem. They met with him and, I suppose he didn't get it. My husband told me he'd give me a week, to see how I acted after that, and then he'd decide if our marriage was worth saving. He obviously thought I was the problem, but it's funny – no one else in our lives thought I was.
One night (he worked the midnight shift and had been sleeping all day), he woke up for work, and I had cooked him Beenie Weenies and macaroni and cheese for dinner. This is the same man whom I'd seen on several occasions pour Beenie Weenies in a can, fresh from the gas station without microwaving, down his through because he didn't have a spoon. But tonight, he didn't want measly Beenie Weenies and mac and cheese. Man want meat and potatoes! He yelled at me, told me what a worthless bitch I was, and stormed off for work. By the time he called me to apologize, I had called my mother and asked her if leaving was the right thing to do. But I had already decided, by the time I dialed her number, that I was going to leave. When he called, I told him, somberly but defiantly, that I could no longer live this way and was going to divorce him.
We worked as a team to move of our apartment together, at the same time; I got a new place and he moved back in with his mother. We elected shared parenting of our daughter. He keeps her half the week, I keep her the other half. No one pays anyone anything. Today, we have a pretty stable relationship. It's all business with us. We're in the business of rearing a child together, and we work fine at that.
Soon after my divorce was final, I remarried to a man who nourishes my creative and intellectual sides, who supports virtually every decision I make, and who keeps me on track when I'm about to make or have made a bad one. Having been through a horrible relationship, I soon found out exactly what it was that I wanted in one. My husband today fits all the necessary criteria and then some. We just celebrated our second anniversary, and I seriously do still get butterflies when I think of him. In April of last year, I vacated my position at the paper to go back to college and pursue my degree in English. Since, I've earned a scholarship that pays pretty much all of my tuition and will as long as I desire to pursue education. I'm working as a writing tutor at my branch campus, and think I really have found my niche. I'm now looking forward to the possibility of obtaining my master's degree and maybe even teaching. Libraries are appealing to me as well. The thing is, so many doors have opened up for me! Best of all, I feel more vibrant and confident than I have in a long time. I haven't been treated for mental illness for over two years now, and I feel good about that, too. I know I wrote this as “My Cautionary Tale,” but I'm so satisfied with how my life has turned out, I don't know if caution is necessary. I suppose I'm well aware of the fact that won't kill one can make her stronger. I'm proud of my battle scars, and I'm a stronger person because of them. So, cautionary? Take it as you will. It's all in how much you enjoy the roller coaster of life.
Part C: Critical Response
1. Nonfiction helps students to read for “the application of facts/detail in the development and interpretation of thought.” What particular facts or details stand out in the book you read—were surprising or interesting—and what assertions did they support. Three examples would be nice here.
I'm going to focus here on Gantos' literary references. There are many details in the book that prove its historical accuracy, so I think lending credit to Gantos' intelligence regarding literature is called for.
Page 30 - “I wasn't buying it. It seemed to me that no amount of forgiveness would ever was away his need to be forgiven every day. He reminded me of the Flannery O'Connor story I loved, “ A Good Man is Hard to Find,” where the Misfit shoots the hugely annoying grandmother to death and then says she would have been a good woman, if somebody had been there to shoot her every minute of her life.”
I like this reference because I really love O'Connor's short story. Gantos makes this statement after watching a high school assembly where four prison inmates told their (highly staged) stories, and one of the men talks about his life as a sex criminal. The man half-heartedly breaks out in a plea for forgiveness, and Gantos makes this entertaining remark.
Page 158 – Gantos references a Zane Grey cowboy novel which was brought to him with a variety of other items by a service worker in the prison. This interests me because recently, my father-in-law read a Zane Grey triology and he was very wrapped up in it for some time. Grey was an Ohio native with ties to the Slone family. I thought it was neat to see the author referenced. In Hole In My Life, the presence of the cowboy novel is amusing, instilling suggestions of the Wild West in comparison to prison life.
Pages 138-139 - “Okay,” I said to myself. “Remember this spot and then this map.” I took thirty-nine steps to the west because I liked the movie The Thirty-nine Steps.” Then I took twenty steps north, one for each year of my life. That brought me into the bushes. “Take Fifteen Steps to Better Writing to the west then turn around and dig,” I whispered.
This is just a funny passage because Gantos created directions for finding where he buried a stash of hash by stringing together book titles. Clever, catchy, and I might just take him up on the Fifteen Steps to Better Writing reference.
2. A retired teacher, Ethel Webb, helped Hirth to see that nonfiction could allow him to “build a world and take command of my life.” What, in your book, connected to your life? If the book did not seem to work this way for you, why not? How, in other words, did your book help you to “make sense of the world.”
I connected to the book because I understood both Gantos' motivation to sell drugs and his writerly woes. First of all, my parents both barely earned their high school educations, and thought that I was smart enough, didn't need to go to college, and should get a job as soon as possible. They didn't know anything about college, and weren't about to learn how to help me go. The guidance counselor at my school was only concerned with sending the valedictorians in our class to college (even though they were the ones with full ride scholarships), and I was only 11th in my class. But I digress. My point is that I understand what it's like to be a young person on the verge of becoming a real, live, full-fledged adult. It's a scary time, and, like Gantos, I didn't know what I should do with my life. I had to live through a tumultuous first marriage, the birth of my daughter, a five-year job as the editor of a newspaper, my role in taking down an embezzling corporate manager, and getting remarried before getting back to college. It feels good, Jack, I know.
I also connected to Gantos because, while I'm not doing drugs all day long, I can't get my thoughts down in a coherent pattern, either. When it comes to writing for pleasure, I can't get myself motivated to write something I'm truly interested in. I'm a little hard on myself, too. I'm an awful critic and terribly cynical and it reflects in the amount of material I produce. Perhaps I'll have more room for leisurely writing once degrees are obtained. I'm glad Gantos finally got it together.
3. Hirth says “Whether you read a short passage…give a brief comment on why you found the excerpt exciting.” Please do that. Any passage from the book and why it was “exciting.”
Oh, I'm going to have to do a very controversial one. This just happened to be the one scene in the book that really made my jaw drop. It took my by surprise. Gantos' voice made it great; he's a fantastic story-teller. In this scene, a representative of the Muslim community at the prison approaches Gantos, a new inmate, and extends to him an offer to establish good race relations with their group members.
“So here is our offer,” he said. “Every Sunday is movie night up in the gym. During the movie the Muslim brothers will all gather in the bathroom for a little prayer meeting. What we would like once you are released into population is for you to join us in a ceremony of trust. Come meet the brothers and then we want you to pull your pants down around your knees and bend over.” (Pg. 160)
Additionally amusing is Gantos' response: “...I flipped open my journal and wrote down everything that had just happened. Nobody would believe it. I couldn't. That's why I had to write it down.” (Pg. 161) Gantos' astonishment and disbelief almost adds comic relief, although the subject matter is far from funny. Because Gantos was able to weasel his way out of the situation, as well, helps make the reader feel more comfortable at laughing with the author at this awkward and frightening situation. It's just the kind of scene you'd expect to see in a prison story, and I think Gantos, as a very intelligent writer, knows that and allows for the cliched reference.
4. He continues “just pass out a copy of a passage to be analyzed.” Choose a passage and talk about the writer’s style: verb use, figurative language, level of diction, sentence length, concrete sensory imagery—anything you can note.
“ In my writing classes, I first wrote brutal stories about prison, about New York street life, about the men I knew who had hard lives and hard hearts. And then one day I got tired of all the blood and guts and hard lives and hard hearts and began to write more stories about my childhood, like the ones I had started writing down in prison, stories which at one time I did not think were important, but suddenly had become to me the most important stories of all. They contained the hidden days of my innocence and happiness. And once I began retrieving the lost pleasures of my childhood, I began to write stories for children. And I laughed about that, too. Prison certainly wasn't funny, but with each new day it was receding into my past.” (Pg. 199)
There is beautiful parallelism displayed in this passage by Gantos. It reads like poetry. The yellow highlighted words, of course, are identical. Next, there are two instances of the phrase, “heard lives and hard hearts,” followed by a mix-up of the phrase, “important stories.” The passage ends with all words associated with positivity. Words like “innocence,” “childhood,” “pleasures,” and “laughed” help the author end his book on a high note.
5. I love Hirth’s sentence: “We teach less about more rather than more about less. We get so caught up in the what, that we forget the why. Only test makers are into recall.” How did your book address the why rather than the what?
Wow. I can't believe how perfectly this book does exhibit this question. Take a look at the following passages. Gantos' friend, Tim Scanlon, a medical student at Florida State, is going on and on about the ideology that all behavior is chemical and that the books he's reading in college is “the future.”
“It will take you back to the why of everything. Remember when you were a little kid and kept asking why and your parents gave you some half-baked answers? Well, these books get down to the root of the why. If you understand this stuff you will understand everything – religion, politics, psychology, art – the history of all human desire is entirely in our chemistry.” (Pg. 44)
And Gantos replies: “He knew great stuff about biology and chemistry and medicine. I knew something about literature and what people plotted in their hearts and thought and suspected, but he knew the secret why behind each though. I only knew how it looked once it happened, once it went splat in my face, and suddenly I wanted to know the why to everything. It seemed the most important desire I'd ever known.” (Pg. 45)
Gantos makes it abundantly clear that it's best to pursue why rather than what. I'm sure he hopes this message makes it through to his readers.
Jack Gantos is also the author of The Joey Pigza Books which include Joey Pigza Swallowed the Key, Joey Pigza Loses Control, and What Would Joey Do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
