Rawls Justice As Fairness Philosophy Essay

Rawls Justice As Fairness Philosophy Essay In this essay I will offer up a critique of Rawls difference principle I will draw out the advantages and problems of Rawls theory in relation to each end of the political spectrum; In a comparison with socialist thought by way of Cohen, and liberal thought by way of Nozick. In relation to Nozick I will initially set out his entitlement theory showing his criticisms of Rawlsian theory; I will go on to side with Rawls and show that Nozicks contrived stance of redistribution as an infringement to liberty and taxation as forced labour is clearly objectionable. Cohen looks to highlight inconsistencies in the Rawlsian theory, questioning, If you are an egalitarian, who come you are so rich? Cohen highlights the moral arbitrariness of Rawls incentives argument based on a moral basis of community values, and shows that a Pareto-improving equality-preserving redistribution can exist; for the most part the two desiderata can co-exist. To show this I will firstly, give a brief overview of Rawl s Theory of Justice. Secondly, I will focus on the difference principle itself for deeper analysis. Thirdly, I will explore a right wing objection to Rawls; examining Robert Nozick and his work, Anarchy, State and Utopia. Fourthly, I will explore a left wing objection to Rawls; examining G. A. Cohen and his work, Rescuing Justice and Equality. Finally, I will concludeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ Rawls Justice as Fairness Aristotle envisioned the ingredients of a theory of justice; he held that it is the job of a good political arrangement to provide each and every person with what they need to become capable of living rich and flourishing human lives.  [1]  In contrast Rawls takes justice to be the first virtue of social institutions.  [2]  Rawls set himself the task of establishing what moral principles should govern the basic structure of just society.  [3]  Taking influence from the Social Contract tradition  [4]  Rawls wants us to examine the question from a hypothetical standpoint; asserting that we can come to a rational decision on the principles of justice if we chose them from an original position, behind a veil of ignorance.  [5]  These are two central ideas at the heart of Rawls theory of justice, which he refers to as justice as fairness. Justice for Rawls is the hypothetical contract that would emerge from this thought experiment; in depriving people of particularizin g knowledge people will rationally chose fair principles rather than allowing that knowledge to bias the choice of principles in their own interest.  [6]  The intuitive idea is the link between fairness and ignorance. If I do not know which piece of cake I am going to get, I am more likely to cut fairly than if I do.  [7]  From the range of conceptions of justice available to them the rational choice of persons in the original position would be the two principles which comprise justice as fairness. The first principle requires equality in the assignment of basic liberties (rights and duties).  [8]  The second principle is concerned with social and economic inequalities, and itself has two parts: the principle of fair equality of opportunity, which has priority over, the difference principle; which holds that social and economic inequalities are just only if they maximise the benefit of the least advantaged members of society.  [9]   All social primary goods liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favoured.  [10]   Taken together these mean that a just society will, first and most important, give each of its members the same set of basic liberties or rights: freedom of expression, of religion, of association, of economic inequalities, it will make sure that all citizens enjoy equality of opportunity in the process by which they come to achieve (and avoid) the unequally rewarded positions. Finally, it will only allow such inequalities at all if they tend, over time to maximise the position of the worst-off members of society. The central idea behind Rawlss principles seems clear enough: the output or earnings of a practice is to be distributed equally, unless some pattern of unequal distribution can, in the manner sketched above, be made to work for everyones benefit, and provided that everyone has a shot at the better-paid roles. The Difference Principle Rawls acknowledges that inequality is a natural occurrence but like many natural things which civilized society overcomes for the greater-good it is also possible that society can narrow the gaps of inequality. Rawls states, The natural distribution is neither just nor unjust; nor is it just that persons are born into society at some particular positions à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ these are simply natural facts. What is just and in just is the way that institutions deal with these facts.  [11]   He believed the best to contrive a just society is to raise the expectations of those worst-off off members. Rawls does not want a meritocracy and therefore does not believe in wages for ones deserts. Firstly, because there is no way in defining the requisite criteria of deservedness in the original position; secondly, it fails to distinguish between moral desert and legitimate expectation. He saw that success was mostly a result of economic and social serendipity; the work that someone put into their success was not the element that made people deserve high income as the opportunity to succeed is effectively impossible without society. Therefore, society deserves the reward for having enabled you to succeed at all. Additionally talents you are born with should not permit you to command an excessive reward for your lottery success (For instance great singers or sport stars). Even the willingness to make an effort, to try, and so to be deserving in the ordinary sense is itself dependent upon happy family and social circumstances.  [12]   Rawls therefore believed that people ought to be paid enough to give them an incentive to work and enough for them to also give back to society (for instance via tax) but preferably in more direct means as he did not believe in the trickle down system. With this approach he is not compensating those naturally less fortunate for their bad luck nor limiting the gifted from monopolising all their good luck, there can be a great income disparity between people but this must be reflected in the benefit of the worst off. He states, Injustice, then, is simply inequalities that are not to the benefit off all.  [13]  To conclude it seems evident that the second principle is simply about wealth and the redistribution of it so that it benefits society as a whole. Nozick Anarchy, State and Utopia Nozick rejects that inequalities must serve, over time, maximally to promote the well-beings of the least advantaged members of society. Conversely he defends the idea of the minimal state promoting a principle of self-ownership that leaves people free to do what they like with property that is theirs; a principle that could justify extreme inequality.  [14]  Nozick asserts that; the logic that leads you to restrict the economic liberties in the way that you do, should also lead you to restrict civil liberties in ways that you dont want to restrict them. Essentially egalitarian liberalism rendered internally consistent yields classical liberalism.  [15]  Hence, Nozick looks to apply the liberal principles that go against state enforcement (i.e. freedom of speech, free association, free immigration) to economic principles.  [16]  Nozick explains by way of analogy:  [17]  if I were to decide I did not want to conform to a societal system of taxation and redistributive j ustice and I were not to use any of the benefits that came from it, (i.e. social welfare, education, health care, etc.), could the state force myself to stay within its borders and force myself to conform to the societal system? He arbitrarily points out that this would be morally wrong, going against the principle of free immigration, infringing your liberty. However, what if I was again to opt out of the same system of taxation and remain in the county, by way of a contractual agreement with the government whereby I never have to pay tax but can never consume any tax provisions. Would this be just? Are we slaves to the state? In applying the same uncontroversial liberal principles to economics Nozick is highlighting the fact that taxation and redistribution of wealth infringes our liberty, restricting our free choice to conform or not to the wishes of the government. Any distribution of wealth can be just if it came about by peoples free choices. He criticises end-state and patterned theories such as Rawls theory of distributive justice, as focusing on the moment, looking at things are now not how things came about. In contrast to his own historical principles; what really matters is not who has what, but how they got it; to be just in economic terms is to have a clean history, on the basis of mutual agreement and voluntary consent. Nozick gives us the analogy of Wilt Chamberlin to extrapolate his claims:  [18]  he asks us to Specify an initial distribution which we feel is legitimate, and then argues that we intuitively prefer his principle of transfer to liberal principles of redistribution as an account of what people can legitimately do with their resources.  [19]   Wilt Chamberlin (a talented basketball player) arrives in town; he agrees to play a game of basketball, fans can watch for the charge of $1.25, with 25 cents going directly to Wilt. This agreement in entered into voluntarily by all willing participants. Suppose now half the population of the town were to agree to the proposed contract and were willing to pay money to see Wilt play, and half the population were not. Wilt Chamberlin stands to earn a substantial amount of money from the voluntary contractual agreement in return for his service (playing a game of basketball). This Nozick points out that this voluntary agreement disrupts the perfect pattern of redistribution. Wealth would no longer be distributed equally for example, and if justice is about achieving a certain pattern or end then the post Wilt distribution is un-just as it will no longer fit the pattern or end. However, that is counter intuitive if the post Wilt distribution is unjust how exactly did the injustice creep i n, so who exactly was treated unfairly in this case? If distribution justice is about achieving some ideal pattern or end, like equality or utility maximisation, where exactly does the injustice arise in the Wilt Chamberlin case? Nozick clearly thinks that no injustice has taken place in this case and his historical principle does a good job of explaining why. Every transfer of wealth in the example takes place on mutually acceptable terms so the fans agree to watch Wilt play for an extra quarter and Wilt agrees to play in exchange for the promised reward; the final distribution of wealth is perfectly just because it came about as a result of just processes. Liberty will upset any pattern or end-state achieved by the interventionist state. To then remedy/restore the pattern or outcome the state would have to continually interfere in our lives. In effect income tax to fund redistribution is forced labour; it gives the poor and needy partial ownership in wage earners.  [20]   Nozicks argument, then, is that to enforce a pattern of redistribution of wealth restricts liberty. A certain picture of what it would be like to enforce a pattern is implied: constant surveillance to make sure on one gets too much or too little, and constant intrusions either to prohibit or to rectify the effects of pattern-breaking transactions. Here Nozick is guilty of a gross exaggeration; he treats all patterned theories of distribution as rigid, when actually, as in the case of Rawls theory, in enforcing a weak pattern it does restrict peoples liberty to a certain extent, but it would be a gross exaggeration to suggest that this infringement was as serious as Nozick maintains.  [21]  In relation to a Rawlsian approach to distributive justice: inequalities are only permissible only in so far as they improve the position of the worst-off. Would the institutions of taxation and welfare benefits really constitute constant interference?  [22]  Nozicks objection can only be t o hold that they do infringe on our liberty, as much that would constitute a rejection of any meddling in ones own affairs. Rawls would hold that: in the trade-off of values, small losses of privacy and liberty are acceptable in exchange for a great deal of poverty alleviation. Thus, redistribution from the better-off to the worse-off, by means of taxation appears not to involve a serious assault on liberty.  [23]   To really know what infringes liberty we would need to go down the road of philosophical analysis to define and construe the intricate working of the notion. To highlight his cause Nozick tries to assert that income taxation is in effect forced labour; a notion which clearly involves an unacceptable violation of liberty. Taking the earnings of n hours labour is like taking n hours from the person.  [24]  To extrapolate on this claim Nozick suggests that the income taxation system unfairly discriminates against people with expensive tastes. As demonstrated by the following analogy: consider the enjoyments of two differing individuals; one enjoys the pleasure of an evening at the theatre, the other takes enjoyment from a country walk. The former will have to work, to earn money to pay for the pleasure, while the latter gains pleasure at no cost to themselves. These poor unfortunates have to pay for their tastes and pleasures, as well as being forced to contribute to the needy, wher eas those who get their pleasure for free are not so required.  [25]  Hence, Nozick suggests that we are discriminating against those with expensive tastes making then work even harder to lead a satisfied pleasurable life. This contrived stance by Nozick is clearly objectionable, forced labour rarely includes the option of deciding how much labour to do. Further, most people have a measure of choice as to the nature of the activity at which they work, and who in particular employs them. This hardly constitutes forced labour.  [26]   Nozick points to specific cases and instances, he is looking for the exception rather than focusing on the rule, he seems to be side-stepping the debate by focusing on the extremes trying to detract from Rawls theory, every theory will have flaws but that does not necessary mean it is not just or worthwhile. Nozicks radical views do encourage debate but do not stand up to Rawls stance; although it would be unfair if tastes were as fixed as eye or skin colour, in fact tastes and pleasures are developed against a range of costs and expectations, so those with expensive tastes are likely to have formed and maintained those tastes knowing them to be expensive.  [27]   Socialist critique Cohen Cohen in Rescuing Justice and Equality literally looks to rescue equality from Rawls incentives argument, that in respect to the difference principle; to ensure high level of productivity is maintained by the better-off members of society, in order to benefit the worse-off, inequalities in wealth are justified as incentives. Cohen is critical of Rawls argument, albeit conceding that incentives may abate suffering; in no way can they formulate justice. This is because such a formulation, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ presupposes a model of society as a non-community, in which relations among human beings are construed as strategic, with people taking one another into account as so many opportunities for, and obstacles to, gain, rather than as fellow citizens by whom they can be asked to justify the way they live.  [28]   Rawls is guilty of a fundamental inconsistency in his conception: Cohen asserts that incentives are only necessary because of the attitudes and choices made by the better-off, more talented citizens. These attitudes and choices are inconsistent, if like Rawls, we assume that the talented support the difference principle and actually want to maximize the position of the worst-off in society. Cohen questions: if youre an egalitarian, how come youre so rich?  [29]   [C]ommunity, or as Rawls denominates it, fraternity, is an important value for Rawls, and one that he claims to be not only consistent with but illustrated by the incentive rationale that I criticizeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦[T]he manner in which Rawls applies the difference principle, in his endorsement of incentives inequality, represents abandonment of that very principle.  [30]   Cohen claims that no reasonable account of distributive justice can go through on the assumption that justice pertains only to political structures narrowly conceived because it necessarily involves the conduct of persons in relation to one another in the family and in the full ethical dimensions of life.  [31]   These issues worry Cohen as well as other critics of A Theory of Justice too. There appears to be a conflict between Rawls reasons for saying that justice demands an initial equality of primary goods for all and his argument justifying a move away from equality to a situation where primary goods are unequally distributed.  [32]  Rawls maintains that there is an obvious starting-point when considering a just distribution of primary goods. This starting-point is equality of all such goods. The natural distribution of talents is morally arbitrary, so there is no reason why the talented should be rewarded more than the untalented in the initial situation. However, Rawls also maintains that it is irrational to stick with an equal division of primary goods if it is possible to better the circumstances of everyone, even the untalented, by permitting the talented to enjoy greater rewards than the rest: Imagine, then, a hypothetical initial argument in which all the social primary goods are equally distributed: everyone has similar rights and duties, and income and wealth are evenly shared. This state of affairs provides a benchmark for judging improvements. If certain inequalities of wealth and organizational powers would make everyone better off than in this hypothetical situation, then they accord with the general conception [of justice].  [33]   Here, in a nutshell, is what Cohen calls the Pareto argument for inequality. Starting from equality, a movement to a position of inequality is justifiable so long as everyone benefits from it. Rawls does not see a movement away from equality as entirely compatible with distributional justice. A movement away from equality may be justified if everybody gains from it.  [34]  The value judgement which is relevant to this argument is the weak Pareto principle; if a change is beneficial for everyone then it is a change for the better. This can be viewed in contrast to the strong Pareto principle; if a change is beneficial for at least one person and worse for nobody then it is a change for the better. The Pareto argument, as interpreted by Cohen, assumes that Rawls is appealing to the weak Pareto principle; to justify a movement away from the benchmark of equality.  [35]  Cohen focuses on the initial situation of equality of primary goods as an initial situation. He adds the presumption that there are only two relevant groups, the talented and the un-talented, each group apply the same degree of effort and application. Consequently the talented, by virtue of their talent, produce more than the un-talented, for no extra reward. Some people would regard this as unfair, but in the argument for baseline equality Rawls has treated peoples initial endowments of talent as morally arbitrary and therefore as not meriting extra reward.  [36]   Then, in this original situation both groups receive, and deserve the same wage. However, if a Pareto change is possible, that in moving to a new situation, output would be increased to the benefit of all. If the talented were to apply themselves to a greater extent, increasing output for the reward of a higher wage. The effort and the output of the untalented remains the same but their wage rate also increases but remains less than that of the talented. Thus, everyone benefits from the new situation. The change, Cohen argues, is one which must be endorsed by the Pareto argument.  [37]  The inequality in the second situation is justified by the fact that all benefit in contrast with their original position. Hence, so by the weak Pareto principle it would be irrational for anyone to resist the change. However, Cohen hypothesis a third even more improved situation which would triumph over the unequal situation that arose by way of the first Pareto change. This new situation involves the same characteristics as the second, bar the wage rate would be the same for both the talented and un-talented groups; the talented still working to their maximum capabilities, but now they do not receive extra benefit (incentive) while the un-talented receive even more than in the second situation. Cohen argues that the talented could have no reasonable objection for working to their potential for no extra reward then there would be no need to introduce any inequalities in primary goods.  [38]   Rawls claim about the irrationality of insisting on equality in the face of a Pareto- superior inequality would lose its force, since a Pareto-improving equality-preserving move, in which no one is as badly off as some are in the second situation, would now also be available.  [39]   The obvious objection to this is that it would be unfair to the talented. However, Cohen insists that this argument is inconsistent to Rawls theory as a whole. If in the original situation it was right to discount talent as being morally arbitrary, then this should be applied to the present situation and throughout his whole theory. If in the first situation the talented would have been accused of exploiting morally arbitrary advantages if they had objected to the equality of the situation. Even in the second situation, it is hard to see why an egalitarian should be expected to regard what they then do as acceptable, even if nothing can be done about it.  [40]   In short, Cohen wishes to assess Rawls move from a situation of equality to one of inequality and incentives by reference to a feasible Pareto improvement, a new improved situation, which would preserve equality. If this new situation is not feasible for objective reasons, reasons independent of the attitudes of the talented, then Cohen will regard the second situation as acceptable. However, he thinks that such cases are unlikely. Hence Rawls does not have to choose between inequality and taking advantage of Pareto changes. For the most part the two desiderata can co-exist.  [41]   Conclusion John Rawls Theory of Justice is widely held to be a primary liberal egalitarian solution to a problem that has been debated over by philosophers and politicians since the time of the ancient Greeks. The problem: of how to organise a just and fair society that allows it citizens to live full and flourishing lives. Rawls offers us a theory that provides us with functioning equality in exchange for minimal inequalities in the form of incentives. This focus on wealth is the downfall of the Rawlsian theory; do we really need incentive to value equality and understand the needs of our fellow humans? Cohens emphasis on community and understanding allows for a more equal morally responsible society, one in which allows each and every citizen to work and live according to their own capabilities, and one due to the emphasis on community allowing equality of opportunity to all. These conditions allow and would satisfy Aristotles criteria of becoming capable of living rich and flourishing human lives.

Examining The Social Structure Theories In The Economy Criminology Essay

Examining The Social Structure Theories In The Economy Criminology Essay Social structure theories assert that the disadvantaged economic class position is a primary cause of crime.   The theories state that neighborhoods which are lower class force of strain, frustration and disorganization that create crime (Shanali-Justicia). Social Disorganization, Strain Theory and Culture Deviance are a few of the social structure criminology theories that are used to explain crime. Other social theories that fall into this category are Culture of Poverty and the truly disadvantage theory. The theory of social disorganization is that crime and delinquency is caused when communities fail. There is a breakdown of families, church, schools and government in the community. Social disorganization theorizes that these relationships reinforce positive behavior, a sense of community responsibility and concern for the social network within a close area (Hardy, 2010). When these relationships breakdown or do not exist the communities and its inhabitants lose its sense of structure and this is believed to be the causation of crime and delinquent behavior. The cycle of Social Disorganization is thought to start with poverty, where there is lack of opportunities and racial discrimination. The lack of opportunities breaks down the social institutions and organizations and this leads to the erosion of traditional values. This breakdown leads juveniles to seek the acceptance from peers and a sense of belonging from gangs. Once these gangs form there is a loss of social control or it b ecomes less effective. When this control is lost neighborhoods become more prone to crime and this detracts from investors which reduces opportunities in the community. Eventually this becomes the norm and this way of life is passed onto the next generation. The formation of criminal careers if formed and the cycle continues for some while others grow out of their delinquent phase. Populace in these disorganized areas can feel neglected, frustrated and ostracized from the economic mainstream, they develop feelings of hopelessness and anger which sociologist state are signs of strain (Siegel Welsch, 2008, p. 89). This strain develops and theorist state it leads people to commit criminal offenses, because they lack the opportunities for success. The opportunity for a better life seems to be beyond their reach, so people turn to deviant behavior to achieve their goals because they feel that society has let them down. Cultural Deviance Theory is a combination of both the effects of social disorganization and strain. It is thought that the lower socio-economic populaces create an independent subculture where they have their own rules and values. Juveniles in lower class neighborhoods adapt to their environment, they become cynical and have no respect for authority. Conventional values make little sense to a youth whose role models may include gun runner, drug deale rs and pimps (Siegel Welsch, 2008, p. 91). Teachers and other authority figures become secondary citizens to these juveniles and they cannot conform to the rules as other members of society do. These juveniles experience a form of culture conflict as a result they never achieve their goals and eventually get caught up in the life of gangs and deviant behavior. The populace of this poverty culture is marked by frustration of their environment. There is a lack of trust of police and government and this mistrust stalls people from this environment from seeking other advantageous opportunities or ones that are available to them. The results of this environment are depression and possibly psychological issues. Inner-cities that suffer from economic changes have an increase of crime; they become ingrained in a cycle of poverty, unemployment and crime. These people are considered the truly disadvantage living in communities with poorly organized social networks, alienated populations and high crime (Siegel Welsch, 2008, p. 85) Theorists such as Clifford Shaw, Henry McKay, and Robert Merton have similar views on social structure theories. While Elijah Anderson believed that juveniles committed crimes because of their socio-economic living conditions there were rendered incapable of achieving success (Siegel Welsch, 2008, p. 92). A juvenile turned to crime because it was their only way of achieving success. They feel that their only option is to join gangs and engage in behavior that is deviant. Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay believe that delinquency is mainly the consequence of a collapse of institutional, community-based controls (Wong, 2009). Shaw and McKay believed that people that lived in situations such as these responded to the disorganization of their environment. They believe that delinquent behavior was a result of social disorganization, because the neighborhoods they lived in were transitional neighborhoods. This was an area where there was a shift in population; the middle class neighborhood would transition to a mixture of lower class people. When this transition would occur the family would become rooted in the neighborhood and the values that they developed such as belonging to gangs and criminal behavior would be passed onto the next generation. Similar to Shaw and McKay, Robert Merton believe that society was the cause of deviant behavior, because society put pressure on people to achieve the American dream. Merton believed that society expected an individual to conform or either work within its structure. When a person cannot conform they become members of a deviant subculture. Merton argued that upper class children are less likely to commit delinquent acts because they have the means and ability to obtain an education and stable employment. While lower class juveniles do not have the same means they feel the social and psychological strain or anomie. Merton believed this condition caused juveniles to commit criminal acts to achieve their goals and even if they were offered the means to achieve these goals legally, they would reject those acceptable means of deviant ones (Siegel Welsch, 2008, p. 89). The theory that I most associate with my belief that juveniles commit crimes is the based Cultural Deviance theory. I think that juveniles conform to their environment and as a result have a lower set of goals and values than those of society. Juveniles that grow up in lower economic levels become hardened in their environment and develop an outer shell that shows no fear and have accepted because they play hard they will probably die young. These juveniles do not hesitate to use violence to get the message across nor do they consider the consequences of their actions. The goals that these juveniles set for themselves are reaching the top level in their gangs and increasing their drug sales. These juveniles cannot understand the concept of hard work and setting realistic goals like other members of society and because they fail to achieve success in life they are quick to blame the man for their failures.

Sigmund Freud :: Psychoanalysis

Sigmund Freud 1856 - 1939 Sigmund Freud was born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1856, it was in the Czech Republic. His father was a small time merchant, and Freud's mother was his second wife. Freud had two half-brothers some 20 years older than himself. His family moved to Vienna when he was four years old, and though he often claimed he hated the city, he lived there until it was occupied by Germany in 1938. Freud's family background was Jewish, though his father was a freethinker and Freud himself an avowed atheist. Freud was a good student, and very ambitious. Medicine and law were the professions then open to Jewish men, and in 1873 he entered the University of Vienna medical school. He was interested in science above all; the idea of practicing medicine was slightly repugnant to him. He hoped to go into neurophysiological research, but pure research was hard to manage in those days unless you were independently wealthy. Freud was engaged and needed to be able to support a family before he could marry, and so he determined to go into private practice with a specialty in neurology. During his training he befriended Josef Breuer, another physician and physiologist. They often discussed medical cases together and one of Breuer's would have a lasting effect on Freud. Known as Anna O., this patient was a young woman suffering from what was then called hysteria. She had temporary paralysis, could not speak her native German but could speak French and English, couldn't drink water even when thirsty, and so on. Breuer discovered that if he hypnotized her, she would talk of things she did not remember in the conscious state, and afterwards her symptoms were relieved -- thus it was called "the talking cure." Freud went to Paris for further study under Jean-Martin Charcot, a neurologist known all over Europe for his studies of hysterics and use of hypnosis. In 1886, Freud returned to Vienna, opened a private practice specializing in nervous and brain disorders, and married. He tried hypnotism with his hysteric and neurotic patients, but gradually discarded the practice. He found he could get patients to talk just by putting them in a relaxing position (the couch) and encouraging them to say whatever came into their heads (free association). He could then analyze what they had remembered or expressed and determine what traumatic events in their past had caused their current suffering.

Explication of The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock Essay -- Poems Poet

Explication of "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" Prufrock begins his â€Å"Love† song with a peculiar quote from Dante’s Divine Comedy. It reads: â€Å"If I believed that my answer were to a person who could ever return to the world, this flame would no longer quiver. But because no one ever returned from this depth, if what I hear is true, without fear of infamy, I answer you.† In the Divine Comedy these lines are spoken by a damned soul who had sought absolution before committing a crime. I think that Eliot chose this quote to show that Prufrock is also looking for absolution, but for what he is unsure. â€Å"Let us go then, you and I, (1).† We are being offered an invitation into Prufrock’s world. As you read on you see what Prufrock sees and how he perceives it. Take for example, line 3, where he says â€Å"Like a patient etherized upon a table;†. On the line before he is describing the evening sky. Prufrock is feeling oppressed by the night sky, or maybe the world in general. The word â€Å"etherized† makes me think he feels helpless. Then you pass by cheap hotels, and restaurants with sawdust floors. Prufrock seems to be getting annoyed when he says, â€Å"Streets that follow like a tedious argument/ Of insidious intent† (8-9). Will these streets never end? Is it their goal to annoy me? Are questions I can imagine him asking himself. Then the whimsy kicks in. Do these streets lead to one overwhelming question? â€Å"Oh, do not ask, ‘What is it?’† (11) Prufrock seems to be pleading. Whatever you do, don’t ask me that question. There is no choice, whatever the destination, we must accompany him and we must make our â€Å"visit†. â€Å"In the room the women come and go/ Talking of Michelangelo† (13-14). We have arrived at o... ...t a bit obtuse;/At times, indeed, almost ridiculous-/ Almost, at times, the Fool† (112-119) Prufrock is describing himself as he sees himself. Honestly, and without glory. That is who HE is. In the next two lines we see his weariness with his current lifestyle. He just wants to sit back and relax. Not worry about what everyone else thinks. He has seen social bells sing to each other, but not to him. He has seen them come and go and grow old in style. That is not what he wants. â€Å"We have lingered in the chambers of the sea/ By sea-girls wreathed in seaweed red and brown,/ Till human voices wake us, and we drown† (129-131). We live in the delusional social world. Surrounded by beauties of all kinds. Eventually, the beauty fades and we realize what is important in life, but usually by then we are â€Å"drowning† or dying and don’t have the time to enjoy it.

Malpractice and Malediction in The Marquise of O. and The Yellow Wallpa

Malpractice and Malediction in The Marquise of O. and The Yellow Wallpaper  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚   In Heinrich Von Kleist's The Marquise of O. and Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper, the female protagonist is terribly mislabeled. The inaccuracies in treatment, administered by seemingly authoritative and knowledgeable characters -- family members and a medically certified spouse, respectively -- result in tragic deterioration of the state of mind of both the Marquise and The Yellow Wallpaper's narrator. The delineation of each character's weakness is comprised of blatant references to an applied infantile image and approaching unstable mentality. In The Marquise of O, the Marquise is thrust unwillingly into the external world; in The Yellow Wallpaper, the narrator is locked away unwillingly in an interior world. Though both are persecuted because of their gender, in The Marquise of O, the Marquise is troubled by the symbolic rebirth of her womanhood; while in The Yellow Wallpaper, the narrator is troubled by the symbolic death of her womanhood. Kleist begins his delineation of the Marquise with terms such as "widowed,", "a lady," and "the mother of several well-brought-up children" (Kleist 68). In this introduction the reader learns that the Marquise has experienced both marriage and childbirth. In respect to her deceased husband, the Marquise avoids remarriage and returns to her family's home with her parents, brother and children. The Marquise transforms her role as lover and wife to daughter and mother, therefore stifling an aspect of her womanhood. It is not until she is unknowingly sexually assaulted and made pregnant that her femininity is reborn. The narrator of Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper, on the other hand, se... ...mother realize the identity of her daughter's rapist before the Marquise, establishing irony and advancing engagement between reader and text. It is also clear to the reader that by the conclusion of The Yellow Wallpaper, the narrator has become maniacal. Though confined to similar situations, Kleist's Marquise and Gilman's narrator are delineated in very different manners. While the Marquise displays boldness and determination in locating her assailant, the narrator of The Yellow Wallpaper allows the intriguing wallpaper to take control of her senses. Both stories exhibit the consequence of a mythical diagnosis administered to an initially sane and healthy person. WORKS CITED Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. The Yellow Wallpaper. Ed. Dale H. Bauer. New York: Bedford, 1998. Kleist, Heinrich Von. The Marquise of O-. London: Penguin Books, 1978.       Malpractice and Malediction in The Marquise of O. and The Yellow Wallpa Malpractice and Malediction in The Marquise of O. and The Yellow Wallpaper  Ã‚  Ã‚     Ã‚   In Heinrich Von Kleist's The Marquise of O. and Charlotte Perkins Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper, the female protagonist is terribly mislabeled. The inaccuracies in treatment, administered by seemingly authoritative and knowledgeable characters -- family members and a medically certified spouse, respectively -- result in tragic deterioration of the state of mind of both the Marquise and The Yellow Wallpaper's narrator. The delineation of each character's weakness is comprised of blatant references to an applied infantile image and approaching unstable mentality. In The Marquise of O, the Marquise is thrust unwillingly into the external world; in The Yellow Wallpaper, the narrator is locked away unwillingly in an interior world. Though both are persecuted because of their gender, in The Marquise of O, the Marquise is troubled by the symbolic rebirth of her womanhood; while in The Yellow Wallpaper, the narrator is troubled by the symbolic death of her womanhood. Kleist begins his delineation of the Marquise with terms such as "widowed,", "a lady," and "the mother of several well-brought-up children" (Kleist 68). In this introduction the reader learns that the Marquise has experienced both marriage and childbirth. In respect to her deceased husband, the Marquise avoids remarriage and returns to her family's home with her parents, brother and children. The Marquise transforms her role as lover and wife to daughter and mother, therefore stifling an aspect of her womanhood. It is not until she is unknowingly sexually assaulted and made pregnant that her femininity is reborn. The narrator of Gilman's The Yellow Wallpaper, on the other hand, se... ...mother realize the identity of her daughter's rapist before the Marquise, establishing irony and advancing engagement between reader and text. It is also clear to the reader that by the conclusion of The Yellow Wallpaper, the narrator has become maniacal. Though confined to similar situations, Kleist's Marquise and Gilman's narrator are delineated in very different manners. While the Marquise displays boldness and determination in locating her assailant, the narrator of The Yellow Wallpaper allows the intriguing wallpaper to take control of her senses. Both stories exhibit the consequence of a mythical diagnosis administered to an initially sane and healthy person. WORKS CITED Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. The Yellow Wallpaper. Ed. Dale H. Bauer. New York: Bedford, 1998. Kleist, Heinrich Von. The Marquise of O-. London: Penguin Books, 1978.      

Banksy Art Btec

Banksy Banksy is a english graffiti street artist. His street art combine dark humor with graffiti done with a distinctive graffiti technique. His artistic works of political and social commentary have been featured on streets, walls, bridges of cities throughout the world. This graffiti street art that banksy created shows the feeling of sadnes, in a way that he has created tone and detail using stencil art technique makes the painting look different and unique, as though there is only on of this kind.It brings out political views wich is what banksy wants to do with his art but he does it in a way that his art looks different than others, also it is street art, so he wants something to stand out and people to notice, this painting draws attention because it uses only black and white spray paint which makes it a more bold drawing, however he still creates tone and effect by using black, or white outlines.I like this piece of art because it really brings out what Banksy wants people to notice, the way he uses tone and different effects with his spray paint makes me want to look at the painting and realize what his hidden meaning behind it was.I like this piece of street art by banksy because he again uses tone and effect in a way that no one has done before, he uses stencil but the white and black colours contrast and make the art seem like its been sprayed with alot of care, also the fact that there is only colour on the flowers but everything else is black and white in this piece of spray paint gives the art more of a warm feeling other than it being about violence and worry, it shows the feeling of warmth, he has also included alot of detail in the flowers themselves, which he hasn't really done in the rest of his pieces.Leonardo Da Vinci Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa, I think this piece of art is a stunning unique painting, it brings out the amazing beauty of Italy and how times were, he has used alot of brown and blue colours which make the paint ing flow really nicely. He has used tone and effect to make the woman come to life as though she really is real. He has used opposite colours wich create the natural effect to this painting. He has taken great consideration in fine detail and the colours he has picked, we can tell they've been picked with alot of care and taken time to be thought about.Overall I think thi painting is a stunning piece of art. Leonardo Da Vinci also painted La belle Ferroniere. he has used tone and effect again with great care of the colours he has chosen in this painting. He has taken more consideration of detail in, for example her red dress in wich you can see alot of the lining which creates a very realistic design of her dress, he has also once again made the painting come to life with the creme and rosie cheeks. He has taken care and detail. Alot of tone and shading has been used. This piece is unique and probably would not be able to be painted again.

E. B. White’s Charlotte’s Web: A Review Essay

Introduction A friend is someone who falls somewhere between intimate love relationships and casual relationships. In a love relationship the binding force is either kinship or marriage with full sexual priveleges. Casual relationships carry no obligations with them. They are comprised of of next door neighbors or work relationships in which there is brief and superficial contact. Nothing deeply personal is revealed and there is no sense of mutual obligation. People exchange greetings and pleasantries in ways that are polite. On the other hand, friendship relationships are neither sexual nor kinship in nature. However, there is a sense of mutual obligation and friends feel deep emotional ties. More than anything friendship relationships are based on a kind of intimacy. How would you feel if you had to give up a cute little pet? What would you do if a friend’s life was in danger? How far would you go to protect someone or something you care about? Discover these answers and more when you read one of the most beloved and well known books of all time, Charlotte’s Web! This is a story about friendship, compassion, caring, and loyalty. Here you will meet Fern, a girl who lives on a farm, Wilbur a tiny, lovable, runt pig, Charlotte, a clever and wise spider, and Templeton, the hungry rat. Come and see how these characters meet and become friends and how one of them will save the life of another. Summary Charlotte’s Web is a children’s novel by American author E. B. White and  illustrated by Garth Williams; it was published in 1952 by Harper & Brothers. It features a pig named Wilbur and his spider friend Charlotte who saves him from slaughter. One morning at the breakfast table, eight year old Fern sees her father leave the house with an axe and asks her mother where he’s going. Her mother delivers the shocking news that Mr Arable is going out to kill a runt that was born the night before. Fern chases her father down and persuades him to spare the runt, telling him that it is unjust to kill a piglet just because it is small. Moved by his daughter’s plea, Mr Arable decides to give the runt to her to look after. Fern names the piglet Wilbur and looks after him like a baby, pushing him in her pram alongside her doll and feeding him with a bottle. At five weeks old Mr Arable insists that Wilbur is sold and he goes to live in the Zuckerman barn down the road . Wilbur initially struggles at the barn because he misses Fern so much but soon he becomes acquainted with new friends, the best of whom is a lady grey spider called Charlotte. Wilbur is fascinated by Charlotte, although to begin with he is slightly suspicious of the way she catches her food – he doesn’t like the idea that she spins bugs in her web and sucks their blood. He soon realizes that Charlotte is everything but cruel and bloodthirsty and that her method of eating is entirely necessary for a spider. Wilbur is complete happy during the summer days – Fern comes to visit and his new friend tells him exciting stories and has the patience to try and coach him about how to spin a web (although she knows fine well he will never be able to) but one day he gets some terrible news that puts an end to his carefree attitude. The sheep tells Wilbur that Mr Zuckerman is fattening him up for Christmas dinner and Wilbur is distraught – he is so happy on the farm and doesn’t want to die. Charlotte calms him down and promises him that she won’t let him be killed. She hasn’t worked out how to save him yet, but she is determined that she will. One morning as Lurvy pours Wilbur’s slops, he notices Charlotte’s twinkling spider web in the morning fog. The words ‘SOME PIG’ have been weaved into the web. Lurvy is gobsmacked and utters a prayer. He quickly tells Mr Zuckerman who is equally amazed and soon the news spreads near and far. Worried that people may be getting bored of ‘SOME PIG’, Charlotte asks Templeton the rat to aid her in finding more words to write in her web. Knowing that if Wilbur is killed he won’t have access to his slops,  Templeton reluctantly scavenges for newspaper clippings to help Charlotte. The next word she writes is ‘TERRIFIC’ and after that, ‘RADIANT.’ Meanwhile, Mrs Arable is concerned that Fern is spending too much time down at the barn and becomes even more alarmed when her daughter tells her about Charlotte and the stories Charlotte tells. Mrs Arable decides to go and see Dr. Dorian to ask him what he makes of Fern thinking the animals can talk and what he makes of the mysterious writing in the web. Dr Dorian is very calm and rational and says that the real miracle is not the writing in the web but the fact that a spider instinctively knows how to build a web without any tuition. He says that it is quite possible that animals can talk and that the reason that adults cannot hear them might be because they talk too much to hear what is going on in nature. With the news of Zuckerman’s famous pig spreading, the Zuckermans and Arables decide to take Wilbur to the County Fair. Charlotte agrees to go too although she is feeling tired and soon has to build a sac to hold her eggs. At the fair, Charlotte is disappointed to see that beside Wilbur’s pen is a much larger spring pig called Uncle. Knowing he is fierce competition, Charlotte decides to spin another web and once again Templeton is sent off to find a word. The adults and children enjoy themselves at the fair and Avery and Fern are particularly excited that they are allowed to go off without their parents all afternoon. Fern spends all afternoon with Henry Fussy and they go on the Ferris wheel together. For months after, Fern will look back nostalgically at her time on the Ferris wheel with Henry. Before nightfall Charlotte weaves her web with the new word ‘HUMBLE’ written into it and throughout the night she makes her egg sac. In the morning the Zuckermans and Arables see the web but they also notice that Uncle has a blue tag on his pen – he has already won first prize. Mr Zuckerman ignores the tag and tells everyone to buck up and give Wilbur a buttermilk bath. Everyone who comes to Wilbur’s pen has something good to say about him. Suddenly, over the loudspeaker a voice is heard asking Zuckerman to bring his famous pig to the judges’ booth for a special award. Wilbur is awarded a medal for being phenomenal and completely out of the ordinary and Mr Zuckerman is given $25. Since the writing first appeared in the web, the miracle has been on everyone’s mind. After the press photos and the commotion, Wilbur is returned to his pen. Wilbur notices that Charlotte is quiet and looks unwell. She tells him that  she is content now that she knows he is safe – she knows Mr Zuckerman will never harm him now, but she tells Wilbur that she is failing and will be dead in a day or two. Panicked and distraught Wilbur races around the pen, begging Charlotte to come home with him, but she hasn’t enough energy to move. Wilbur decides to take Charlotte’s egg sac and promises Templeton first choice of his slops if he retrieves the sac. As Wilbur carries the sac in his mouth and is led into the crate, he winks at Charlotte and she musters all the energy she can to wave goodbye. The next day, as the Ferris wheel is being taken apart, Charlotte dies. Back at the Zuckerman’s, Wilbur is given a noisy welcome home. He waits patiently for the birth of Charlotte’s children and often looks longingly at her empty, broken web. When her children are finally born, Wilbur is distraught to see them let out loose clouds of fine silk that carries them far away on the breeze. Three of Charlotte’s children stay in the barn with Wilbur, however and become his good friends. Year after year new spiders are born to replace the old but no one ever replaces Charlotte in Wilbur’s heart. Conclusion This book is especially good for first time readers who have taken the big jump from short stories to a real novel. It is easy reading and the talking animals captivate the young children. An affectionate, sometimes bashful pig named Wilbur befriends a clever spider named Charlotte, who lives in the rafters above his pen. A prancing, playful pig, Wilbur is devastated when he learns of the destiny that befalls all those of pork animal persuasion. Determined to save her friend, Charlotte spins a web that reads â€Å"Some Pig,† convincing the farmer and surrounding community that Wilbur is no ordinary animal and should be saved. In this story of friendship, hardship, and the passing on into time, E.B. White reminds us to open our eyes to the wonder and miracle often found in the simplest of things.