100% Secure Payment
© 2025 Copyright:
BoutEssays. All rights reserved
Though Shakespeare’s Henry IV Part One is ostensibly about the titular character and his son, the future King Henry V, both Henry's are constantly upstaged by Sir John Falstaff. Falstaff is one of Shakespeare’s most beloved and enduring characters for a reason; his character contains pieces of multiple archetypal personalities and stock characters including the Vice, the Picaro, the Fool, the Miles Gloriosus, and the Plautine Parasite. Each of these character types contributes its best, or worst, parts to create an unforgettable whole. Frye points out that, “We know very little about the contemporary reception of Shakespeare’s plays, but one of the things we do know is that Falstaff was exactly the same kind of popular favorite that he is now, and for exactly the same reasons” (271). Shakespeare has used some of these character types in the past, most notably the Vice. In Richard III Shakespeare uses the Vice to great extent in creating his fictional composite of the historical King. The same skill in grafting fictional qualities onto historical characters comes into play again with Falstaff and is the main reason why Falstaff remains such an enduring icon of drama.
Get original essayThe medieval vice character is the descendant of The Vice, an archetypal villain who represented the seven deadly sins in the allegorical English morality plays. Though the Vice spreads dissent and disdain for law and order he is usually portrayed as a comic trickster rather than a purely evil force. The Vice is distinguishable from other villains in that he uses his skill with words to achieve his goals through trickery and confusion. Oftentimes the Vice appeals to the audience even as he is upsetting the natural order of any situation in which he meddles.
Falstaff, long a fan favorite character from all of Shakespeare’s plays, clearly fits the description of amusing, witty, and sinful. His fat figure attests to his gluttony and sloth, his frequenting the tavern proves his weakness for lust, and his thievery and bragging stem from his avarice and pride. Critics like Withington have long taken note of this saying, “Beneath the individuality which makes Falstaff such a lovable figure, critics have found gluttony, lechery, and other deadly sins, together with traces of the parasite” (743). Indeed the Prince himself, role-playing his father the King, accuses Falstaff of being the Vice: “Why dost though converse with that trunk of humors…that reverend Vice, that gray Iniquity” (2.4.443-448). Falstaff also subverts those around him, dragging down Prince Hal from his royal pedestal and further corrupting Bardolph and Nym. Though Hal has the good sense and keen wit to escape Falstaff’s influence, Bardolph and Nym are not so bright and end up hanged for looting. Sir John’s corrupting influence, barbed tongue, and sympathy with the audience all tie into the traditional role of the Vice character.
The picaro is a type of renaissance rouge, a believer in counter culture who has no personal or societal ties. The picaro is often depicted as a nomad, moving often and following a shifting trail of opportunity. What he finds he quickly consumes before moving on, never focusing on the future or by extension the accumulation of wealth or power. The picaro is a survivalist. Falstaff easily fits this description as well. Having no career, no ambition, and no home but the tavern he survives by riding the coattails of Prince Hal. Rothschild notes that, “Falstaff’s life on this social fringe is marked by a chronic impecuniosity, which he relieves mainly with his wit” (18). When war comes he adjusts and takes advantage of the situation to squander the army’s money. With the possible exception of the Prince and his drinking companions Falstaff has no sympathy for the plights of men and sees others solely as exploitable resources. He audibly voices his disdain for ideals and values in his “what is honor” soliloquy. The attitude he expresses in this speech lends further credence to the argument that at least part of his personality is rooted in the renaissance picaresque tradition.
The Miles Gloriosus, or braggart soldier, is a classical Roman and Greek stock character of drama whose main trait is his overreaching braggadocio -- which contrasts with his underperformance or cowardice in battle to much comic effect. Grady summarizes this aspect of Falstaff’s nature by writing: “Falstaff is also an embodiment of the destructive egoism that is one of modern subjectivity’s most prominent potential outcomes” (613). Falstaff plays this role in a plethora of situations throughout the play. When he tells Prince Hal about the robbers he fought off the number steadily increases each time he opens his mouth. The same thing happens later in the battle scenes, when Falstaff boasts of his conquest over Hotspur, despite having played dead on the battlefield to avoid risking his life in combat. This act in particular shows characteristics of not only the braggart but the picaro and the parasite as well. Falstaff does no fighting, claims he fought valiantly, saps off Prince Hal’s valor by claiming he killed Hotspur, and uses the unearned honor to further his own survival.
The Plautine Parasite is a character based on the idle poor of republican Rome who eked out a living by attaching themselves to the idle rich. They led lives of frivolous amusement and degenerate luxuriate through flattery, oftentimes suffering the butt end of a joke with nary but a smile. Similarly, Falstaff leeches off of not only Prince Hal but the hostess of the Tavern as well, suffering rebukes and insults and responding only with witticisms and smiles. An entire scene is devoted to Prince Hal’s participation in a robbery for the sole purpose of humiliating Falstaff by catching him in a lie. Falstaff waxes increasingly lyrical on food and wine, the only interests of the parasite. Draper argues that “Falstaff, indeed, is no respecter of his social inferiors, his equals, or his betters: he seems to respect only those who may provide his dinner and only when they do it” (396-397).
The fool, finally, is a kind of court jester or wise idiot who, though seemingly crazy, helps other characters realize the truth behind the actions or events that occur around them. Royalty often employed professional fools for both amusement and advice giving, with the main requirement being a razor sharp wit and the tenacity to use it. Falstaff can be seen as Prince Hal’s fool, as Hal derives amusement and companionship from him and sustains him in his erratic behavior in return. Gus Van Sant’s My Own Private Idaho portrays the Falstaff character as a wandering homeless man who dispenses advice and wisdom to the children of the streets. Sir John possesses an epic wit and is not afraid to use it. Falstaff’s battlefield speech about the nature and worthlessness of honor cuts to the heart of the matter in a way that only a fool can.
Shakespeare’s use of stock characters and archetypal personalities advances in leaps and bounds when comparing Richard III to Sir John Falstaff. Richard III was a Vice character through and through. Though Shakespeare was very effective in creating Richard in the form of the Vice he pulls off an even more impressive feat with Falstaff. In Sir John he successfully integrates the Vice and at least four other characters into one stunning amalgamation of personality. Falstaff is a much more nuanced and rounded character than Richard. The more light shone on Falstaff the more facets of his character are revealed. In the approximately five years between the composition of Richard III and Henry IV Part One Shakespeare clearly gained more confidence in his skill with characterization and his willingness to expand on the format of the history play that he himself invented. Possessing both the techniques to create and complex character like Falstaff and the tenacity to insert him into a historical account, Shakespeare gave birth to one of the most celebrated characters of all time.
The world is strongly impacted by the thoughts, ideas, and imagination of the human race. People constantly wonder, dream, and think,while some have even tried to turn their ideas into reality. Because of this, many events have occurred that are now renowned as historical feats. Of course, not all ideas have manifested into reality, but those who do manage to achieve this end eventually change history in a certain way. The extent to which history is changed is based on the strength of a person’s idea, and the performance it leads to.I believe that all of the significant moments in history have involved a powerful idea becoming a prominent action, as shown by the performance of certain groups and individuals in the novels Maus And Unbroken, two novels that take place during World War II.
Get original essayDuring the Holocaust, the Germans and even the Poles behaved very cruelly towards to the Jews due to their belief that the Jews were an inferior race. The prominent idea of Jewish inferiority is displayed as actions in Maus I when Vladek tells Art that “The mothers always told so: ‘Be careful! A Jew will catch you to a bag and eat you!’ so they taught to their children” (Spiegelman 149). As can be deduced from Vladek’s words, the Poles and Germans viewed Jews as bad people, and even taught their children to stay away from them. This view of Jews by Poles and Germans was a strong ideal that supported their action of teaching others, such as their children, that the Jews are an inferior people. The discriminating outlook towards Jews and the actions following it are major factors that led to and sustained the Holocaust, a very dreadful and powerful moment in history. In Maus II, when Vladek is describing the showers, he says that “Zyklon B, a pesticide, [was] dropped into hollow columns” and that “…it was between 3 and 30 minutes…[until] soon was nobody anymore alive” (Spiegelman 71).Vladek’s mentioning of the Zyklon B pesticide used to kill the Jews in the showers shows how the Nazis regarded the Jews as not just similar to vermin, but as vermin. This treatment of the Jews as animals by the Germans was one of the many horrible things that defined the Holocaust of World War II. In the end, to the Germans, Jews were simply a race that did not deserve to exist, and they manifested their thoughts into the abominable actions that characterized the Holocaust, one of the grimmest events in history.
Greatly horrendous events in history are not the only ones that involve strong performance through ideas; brilliant events in history such as the story of Louie Zamperini have emerged through the strength of the mind and actions. In Laura Hillenbrand’s book, Unbroken, Louie is described as fearless, “thrilled by the crashing of boundaries... [and] untamable” (Hillenbrand 6), traits which allowed him to reach great heights and keep on going, such as when he obtained seventh place in the Olympics (Hillenbrand 36) and survived both a crash into the Pacific and the Japanese POW camps during World War II (Hillenbrand 131-336). All of these achievements were able to happen only because of who Louie was; he channeled his powerful determination, his strong ideals, and the motivation he got from his brother into actions that would affect himself and the world around him. His passionate willpower and resolve prove that the wonderful events in history he created or was a part of we're all influenced by a performance he had strengthened with his ideas. Louie’s strength of mind is truly portrayed when he refuses to break under the harsh conditions created by the “Bird,” a sadistic man who was the epitome of the evil performed by the Japanese in the POW camps(Hillenbrand 236-306). Despite many beatings and cruel treatment by the “Bird,” Louie did not break because he believed that he would one day return home to see his family again. This determination allowed him to survive no matter what happened to him, a feat that not many could achieve. Louie Zamperini’s life, a truly great moment in history, is significant because Zamperini Was capable of channeling his ideas into achievements.
However, some may claim that history was not affected by actions supported by ideas in any way. For instance, some would say that the Germans’ and Poles’ hatred of Jews merely stemmed from a fear of being isolated from a society under Hitler where the Jews are excluded, rather than the belief that Jews were inferior, and acted based upon that. This point can be looked at as true, but only if the brutal actions of the Germans and Poles are taken out of account. The reason for this is because even though the Germans and Poles may have feared and obeyed Hitler’s every word, they may have still felt pity for the Jews that were being killed and put in horrible conditions. However, nearly all Germans and some Poles did not, and instead contributed to the harsh conditions of the Jews by beating them and speaking of them as if they were trash. Therefore, the Germans and Poles did act out of their own belief that the Jews were inferior, and not solely because of the opinion of Hitler. In Louie Zamperini’s case, some may claim that his life story was a great event in history not because of his actions that were bolstered by his ideas, but because of the people around him, such as his brother, who pushed him to run when he would’ve given up, like when “…Pete was all over Louie, forcing him to train, then dragging him to the track to run a second meet” (Hillenbrand 15). This point is credible because without Pete, Louie wouldn’t have had the determination or motivation to do track. Even though Louie may not have started running without Pete’s guide, the rest of the work that he did was all of his own merit. Louie’s hard work that arose from his newfound love for running and his determination to continue on contributed to most of his achievements in his life. Although some people may believe that performance based on ideas did not contribute to all truly great moments in history, it is apparent that the actions supported by ideas, in one way or another, ended up being the largest factor of all significant events in history.
All major moments in history have involved a performance facilitated by a powerful idea that an individual or group has come up with. The definition then, of a great moment in history, would be the manifestation of an idea into reality. Those who use their beliefs and ideals to shape the world are considered great, either in a good or a bad sense. The power of ideas continues to shape our world today; those in the present continue on, pushing their thoughts and beliefs onto others and the world. However, not all people succeed. The only way for an idea to turn into a great moment in history is when it becomes so powerful, so motivating, and so inspiring that it causes the one who thought of the idea to act, influence others, and become prominent. In this way, brilliant and horrible people emerge, and after their great historical moment passes, one will tell their tale for centuries.
Infertility is defined as inability to conceive children or young according to the Oxford English dictionary. Infertility has over time become a discussion the world has embraced and the challenges around it are constantly being researched to find ways to resolve them. In the past, anywhere in the world, the discussion around the infertility was considered shameful and unattractive. Regardless of whether one was a male or a female, the inability to have children was shut behind closed doors and even considered a taboo in many Africa communities. One was termed cursed and not fit for any partner for courtship or marriage. But times have changed and changed immensely. In a recent interview by Doctor Oz a world known famous actor, Gabrielle Union opens up to the world after years of struggling with infertility she says “ When it doesn’t work it can be absolutely devastating. And as women we are so many of us, hiding in plain site, suffering in silence, nobody wants the world, which is what it feels like, to think that you are ‘defective’ or less than a perfect woman or less than capable. And there is so much shame and mystery and guilt that surrounds fertility issues.” The interviewer goes ahead to ask her as to why speak about it now, why not after ten years when this is all done and she says “Because there is no reason to feel alone, there is no reason to suffer in silence, there is no reason to feel like Seal Team Six getting to a doctors appointment because you are afraid of what someone is going to say about a medical issue. Which drives people away further and further into the shadows and you are literally suffering in silence. And I am saying no more, Enough!” An instance like this and others who have come forth speaking of what infertility caused them is what guides this paper. With developing countries within the Africa region, the effects of infertility are instability within a marriage which either leads to polygamy or divorce, economic hardship as many depend on children for economic survival and social rejection and stigmatization of the infertile individual and their family members.
Get original essayWorld Health Organization defines infertility in three main categories: clinical, demographic and epidemiological, where each is defined as a disease of the reproductive system defined by the failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse (WHO-ICMART glossary) , an inability of those of reproductive age (15-49 years) to become or remain pregnant within five years of exposure to pregnancy, and women of reproductive age (15-49 years) at risk of becoming pregnant (not pregnant, sexually active, not using contraception and not lactating) who report trying unsuccessfully for a pregnancy for two years or more respectively. A world report by WHO estimated about 34 million women, predominantly have infertility which resulted from maternal sepsis and unborn safe abortion especially from predominant developing countries. In Africa the highest prevalence the world highest rates of infertility is found in the non Western societies, especially those in the “infertility belt” of Central and Southern Africa. In countries with low to none resources, the problem is evaluated to affect up to 30% of couples, causing huge suffering. The key focus area of this paper would be on the known and broad understanding of infertility in two dimensions: primary infertility and secondary infertility. Women whose pregnancy spontaneously miscarries, or whose pregnancy results in a still born child, without ever having had a live birth would present is considered a primary fertility while a woman is classified to be having secondary infertility when she is unable to bear a child, either due to the inability to become pregnant or the inability to carry a pregnancy to a live birth following either a previous pregnancy or a previous ability to carry a pregnancy to live birth.
In the African context, infertility more often than not, presents itself in a marriage situation. In this case, child bearing is really valued; it is the essence of marriage within the African Community (Mburugu & Adams, 2004). Thus the inability to have children causes instability and trauma amongst couples. In most cases, if a woman is unable to conceive it is perceived that she would be the problem. Therefore a man is given the right to marry a second woman to give him children, a free ticket to practice polygamy. As bearing children is a desired and valued social role, the community allows him to sleep with another woman while the other woman is shamed and condemned. Such injustice to the woman is even condoned to levels of violence within the society and only the forward thinking people amongst her can save her from such cruelty.
In Kenya, a woman’s hands were butchered by her husband due to her inability to have children, a case of primary infertility. While Ngila, the husband, allegedly attacked her because they weren't able to have children, a hospital in Nairobi said Mwende was fertile and it was her husband who had reproductive issues. In cases like this, society stepped in and she was granted grounds for divorce. Unfortunately in most societies, women suffer in silence and are abused by the husbands. This is not to mean that men don’t endure abuse from women when infertility issues come from them. But studies from African countries like Kenya reveal that women bear more repercussions of childlessness than men. Among the Luhya people of Kenya, infertility was always considered to be the woman’s fault. According to the Kamba community, the notion of “vinya” that is, “strength,” is linked with reproduction or childbearing and marriage.
While observing structural functionalism theory which sees the family as a social institution that performs certain essential functions for the society and if this functions are not carried out the family is said to be dysfunctional. We can apply it to deal with injustices that arise from the instability caused by infertility. In the case of Mwende where crime was committed, the theory states that communities must work together to establish and execute the consequences thus creating a stronger bond of solidarity among the member of the society. In a report by CNN, 2016 the attack has been condemned by politicians, activists and citizens across Kenya and The Bangladeshi embassy in Kenya has promised to provide Mwende with medication for at least three months, while Lay says she and other activists have offered to provide her with prosthetic limbs, a $250 allowance per month, transport to therapy and business skills to help prepare her for life after recovery. This clearly demonstrates a practice of structural functionalism theory.
Another effect of infertility is economic hardship. According to a 2011 report from WHO, a study in 2008 found a 2.7% percent primary infertility rate among women in an urban area of Tanzania. A nuclear family is generally viewed as a husband, wife and children. In most African communities bearing of children is a way to achieve economic stability within the family. It is believed that once the first born children have acquired basic skill or education they can then go ahead and secure basic jobs and educate their younger siblings and in the long run take care of their parents. When a couple faces infertility issues this economic foundation that is to be is disrupted. Another factor is the economic burden that comes with infertility treatment.
Modern treatments such as in vitro fertilisation, hormone injections and artificial insemination, are time consuming, expensive and not available in developing countries. In the third worl how to manage this vast problem has not been well researched and the need to bring a treatment affordable to a common citizen is way overdue. Even if one was to explore traditional healers they are more expensive than faith based healers. In Nigerian women spend between 55% and 100% of their earnings on attempts to treat their infertility. In Nigeria and Rwanda, one of the greatest concerns to an infertile woman is the financial discrepancy between her and her extended family.
Therefore, for the interest of a nation growth and economic status a resolution to the economic hardships arise from infertility. To help analyze this, an application of system theory is key, whereby a social system is a process between actors. Talcott Parsons states that, “It is the structure of the relations between the actors involved in the interactive process which is essentially the structure of the social system. The system is the network of such relationships.” Given that infertility has a ripple effect within the family and then the nation, systems theory how things do not have meaning in themselves. A mezzo and macro level approach to link the access to resources often facilitated by centralized figures and focusing between communities and formal community organisations can play a big role in changes the negative effects brought on by infertility to the economy within a home and a nation.
Stigmatization and social rejection is a major effect of infertility not only to the infertile individual but the involved parties as a whole. Women in particular, also commonly suffer from severe negative social consequences such as stigmatization, ostracism, abuse and economic deprivation. In Nigeria, a woman who has not borne children cannot be recognised as an elder because she has not been able to bear a son; therefore, she does not have a right to her husband’s property, nor can she return to her parents’ compound as she will be mistreated. An infertile woman is often left without a home and without any money.
Stigmatization may take effect in various forms. One may be ashamed to be associated with themselves or their partners. Families may be affected as one party may carry on the burden more than the other. In many developing countries, social stigmas are attached to infertility. For example, women cannot join communal social groups, since access to this privilege follows pregnancy.However, it is not only women who are affected by infecundity; infertile men are also plagued with negative consequences. Loss of social status, social isolation and marital instability for both men and women define the social outcomes. Psychologically, women lose their ‘womanhood’ and sense of gender identity when they cannot conceive; men are not considered to be a ‘man’ if they do not have a child. For example, men in Rwanda who do not have children stated that they are less motivated to work since they do not have any offspring to support.
Compared to western societies, infertile couples in Third World countries feel a deeper depth of guilt, shame, worthlessness and depression if they cannot conceive. This is in the long run affects their role within their family and within the society as they are considered a “defect”. We use of the family systems theory to invent strategies on how to deal with this problem. Family systems theory is a theory introduced by Dr. Murray Bowen that suggests that individuals cannot be understood in isolation from one another, but rather as a part of their family, as the family is an emotional unit. Families are systems of interconnected and interdependent individuals, none of whom can be understood in isolation from the system. With understanding of the role each individual plays and how it affects the other, more so how one can react to it is an essential way to deal with social rejection and stigmatization. If the woman or man is infertile support from their partners is crucial through the process to help them feel loved and supported as they explore options to bear a child.
Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.
Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.
Get custom essayIn conclusion the effects brought on by infertility are not insoluble and this can be achieved through critical theory. Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole. Critical theory aims to dig beneath the surface of social life and uncover the assumptions that keep us from a full and true understanding of how the world works. Despite the instability caused within a marriage which either leads to polygamy or divorce and economic hardship as many depends on children for economic survival and social rejection and stigmatization of the infertile individual and their family members, resolutions can be formed around this problems. A case given in how each individual and society can play a role clearly depicts how efforts can be made to incumb infertility. General openness to talk about it instead of suffering in silence is the first step, and finding ways to deal with it a couple is second. Consent to have a child or not is between two people, if both parties agree and are committed ways can be developed on how to make it possible. They can explore fertility clinics to make them aware of what can be done and attend counselling sessions to support them mentally and emotionally. Society should then act as a concrete support for the two individuals and support in ways necessary. The provision of the required resources for health and counselling that are affordable to the common citizen. Education on the subject is also key for all generations especially the upcoming to be aware of what is happening around them and know how to face such issues.
Maus, a graphic novel series written by Art Spiegelman, was published in two volumes. Volume I, My Father Bleeds History, was published in 1986 (“My Father Bleeds History” 4) while Volume II, And Here My Troubles Began, was published in 1991 (“And Here My Troubles Began” 2). Throughout both volumes, there were many themes including family and guilt. Spiegelman used stylistic choices such as point of view and allegory which enhance the central themes of the graphic novel series. Additionally, Spiegelman’s ability to intertwine both ethos and pathos gives a unique twist to the historical event of the Holocaust. Although Maus has been deemed as controversial, it serves a purpose in telling the story of a Nazi concentration camp survivor. The telling of the survivor’s story is by way of graphics and family accounts by strategically implementing the aforementioned stylistic devices in order to portray the themes of family and guilt.
Get original essayMaus offers two points of view with both being first person. The author, Spiegelman, uses both himself and his father, Vladek, as narrators in the story. This unique twist provides insight from two perspectives that are necessary to the story. Vladek’s first person perspective gives us a direct look into life in the concentration camps and how he had to think in order to survive. On the other hand, Art gives us a completely different perspective. Art’s perspective allows us to know Vladek’s story, but it also gives insight to the aftermath of the Holocaust.
The use of two perspectives gives way to some of the major themes in the book including family and guilt. From Vladek’s perspective, the theme of family creates a heart wrenching narrative as he talks about trying to save his first child, Richieu, by sending him with another family. Additionally, Vladek loses his wife and through the perspective of Art, the reader watches how Vladek’s mourns his first wife, Anja. On the other hand, the perspective of Art gives a completely different view on the theme of family. Art was not alive during wartime, but he still experienced great heartache from it. When his mother, Anja, committed suicide, it left him confused and he often blamed his father, Vladek. While both perspectives have family as a significant theme, they are vastly different.
In addition to the use of two points of view lending to an understanding of the theme of family from two perspectives, this stylistic choice also helps the reader to understand guilt. Vladek and Art both experience guilt, but in vastly different forms due to their circumstances. Vladek’s perspective of guilt comes from surviving the concentration camps when millions of others did not. Paul Chodoff, a psychiatrist, said it this way: “Finally, some survivors felt guilty simply because they remained alive when so many others had died,” (154) There was no rhyme or reason to his survival; truthfully, Vladek made it out by the skin of his teeth so his confusion of surviving left him feeling guilty.
Art’s perspective of the theme of guilt comes from feeling like he has never come close to experiencing the agony of concentration camps like his father, his mother, and his brother whom he never met. Chodoff wrote “The children, now grown men and women, have sometimes been raised in a psychological atmosphere prisoned by the scarring that their survivor parents have brought to their childrearing task,” (155) which is exactly what we see playing out in Vladek and Art’s relationship. While the trauma Vladek experienced is more than valid, it also created an environment that was not made for children. Vladek was still processing the trauma when he had Art and up until the day he died, and this subjected Art to a new, completely different form of trauma that impacted his life and view of family and guilt. The trickle-down effect of survivor’s guilt left a mark on Art, just as the survivor’s guilt left a mark on Vladek’s life.
Spiegelman implements allegory into his graphic novel Maus. Allegory is defined in the textbook Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing as “a narrative in verse or prose in which the literal events (persons, places, and things) consistently point to a parallel sequence of symbolic ideas,” (Kennedy et al. 1910). In Maus, the use of animals symbolizes the people coming from different nations. The Jews, including Vladek and Art, were depicted as mice while the Nazis were cats. Additionally, the Poles were drawn as pigs and the Americans as dogs (Shmoop). The allegorical significance behind the use of mice and cats symbolizes a couple of ideas. First, the reader can recognize this as the idea of the cat and mouse game where the cat is chasing the mice; in this game, the fate is either the mice escaping or the cat killing the mice which is symbolic of the Nazi’s killing the Jews and the Jews also trying to escape.
Another way the reader can perceive the use of this allegory is that Jews were seen as insignificant non-humans similar to the idea of a mouse being a rodent. The use of animals as humans creates another indirect symbol towards how the Nazi’s operated. By using dehumanization as a tactic to kill Jews, and many other minorities, it is bold of Spiegelman to bring that forward in his book. The piece “Overlooking Others: Dehumanization by Comission and Omission” puts dehumanization like this: “Representing others as subhuman denies them fundamental human rights for freedom and protection from harm,” (Waytz and Schroeder 251) which is exactly how the Nazi’s completed such an atrocity. The use of this subtle allegory points to how Jews were not seen as human, therefore, they didn’t have rights which is another reason they were portrayed as mice in the series.
The use of allegory in the graphic novel gave a different perspective to the historical event. Typically, historical events are told by words only. Spiegelman incorporated graphics to add another layer of understanding, but also the allegorical meaning of the graphics. This allowed for a deeper, more complete understanding of the Holocaust.
Along with the stylistic choices of multiple points of view and allegory, Spiegelman tactfully used ethos and pathos to engage the reader. Since Maus is written by Art and told through the perspective or himself and his father, the credibility is present in lieu of the fact that it is a memoir. Art and Vladek are an expert of their own life and experiences. Moreover, Spiegelman uses pathos effectively both when he is in first person and when his father is in first person. As the reader, depending on the perspective, your emotions change. When Art is speaking, you feel resentment towards Vladek. Alternatively, when Vladek is speaking, you begin to feel empathy for him and his story and wonder why Art is hard to his father.
To conclude, Art Spiegelman tactfully implemented a variety of stylistic choices to give a unique perspective on a memoir from the Holocaust. Not only was his choice to make a graphic novel groundbreaking, but he also used two points of view, allegory, and a combination of ethos and pathos to highlight the central themes of the series Maus. By way of these stylistic devices, Spiegelman managed to successfully elicit ideas and themes surrounding family guilt by telling his father’s story. His unique approach lends to deeper understanding of the depth of torture people experienced during Nazi concentration camps while coping with guilt.
A classic definition of family, according to anthropologist George Murdock, is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation, and reproduction. It includes adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults. The U.S. Bureau of the Census has defined a family as two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption, who reside together. Thus a family can be two or more adult siblings living together, a parent and child or children, two adults who are related by marriage but have no children, or adults who adopt a child.” A family is a set of human being related to each other in a non- professional manner, giving rise to a concrete cohesion within the family. Love, care, and affection are the most prominent human values, which are responsible for maintaining these bonds of relationships within a family. (Agarwal, V.2005), not only these but a family also gives strength to an individual and because of its strength an individual can overcome from different kinds of problems too. A family gives strength to an individual; it is not only the strongest point but also the weakest point of an individual.
Get original essayA person learns different things from his/her family, but learning different things also varies from family to family. There are two basic kinds of family in our society Joint Family and Nuclear Family.
A Joint Family (or extended family) is also known as a complex family, parents and their children’s families often live under a single roof, which means that Joint family consist of two or multiple generations. In some cases Joint family can be said as a family where a collection of more then one nuclear families are interconnected either by blood relation or marital relation reside under the same roof. All the members, regardless of which particular nuclear family (within that joint family) they belong to, live together and share happiness, grief, and virtually every kind of problem and joy together. The joint family in itself simulates a typical view of our multicultural, multilingual society in India and as well as in Bangladesh. (Agarwal, V.2005) Joint Families are mostly found in Asia.
The term nuclear family developed in the western world to distinguish the family group and is considered as the simplest type of a family which consist of a married man and a woman with their offspring ‘.Nuclear Family can also be referred to as a conjugal family because of the accent is of the husband wife relationship and the nuclear family is the basic unit of all more complex forms’. (Nimkoff, F.M. & Middleton, R. 1960)
Family in the Western country like the United States have become more diverse with no particular household arrangement representing half of the United States population. The different types of families occur in a wide variety of settings, and their specific functions and meanings depend largely on their relationship to other social institutions. Non-scholars, especially in the United States and Europe, use the term nuclear family to refer to conjugal families. Non-scholars, especially in the United States and Europe, also use the term .Extended Family’ this term has two distinct meanings. First, it serves as a synonym of consanguine family .Second, in societies dominated by the conjugal family, it refers to kindred’ (Retrieved April 7, 2007)
The behavior, lifestyle, thinking everything varies from family to family .i.e. a person from a joint family behaves, thinks in a different way then that of a nuclear family. People from joint family comes across many different things and by facing those different things they mostly learn how to meet the social challenges of the real world.
Living in a joint family in itself is a beautiful experience and among the two basic kinds of family, joint family is the one where a person gets different kinds of advantages such as a person learns to love and earn respect which is the key to have harmonious and never ending relationship. Mutual respect and love are biggest values a joint family can offer. Not only a person to learns love and earn respect but also an individual can share his/her joys and grieves; in joint family there are many people to enjoy about a particular delightful occasion and as well as provide support at the time of family problems. (i.e., incase if some one is ill).When a person lives in a joint family he/she can share many secrets with someone of his/her age (cousins), which he/ she cannot share with his/her elders or younger but cannot do the same when in a nuclear family. Another advantage of living in a joint family is of safety and development of children, in joint families a child can be nurtured properly and perfectly. The chances of a child to get spoilt are lesser than that of a nuclear family. For example, in many cases we have seen that the working women leave their child at home along with their servant or baby sitter and their company spoil the child, whereas in joint family the cases are reverse; there are enough people (such as grandmother, aunts etc) to look after the child.
Despite of all these advantages the concept of joint family is disappearing day by day from our society; and the reason behind it is the mentality of people are changing, they don’t want to be dependent on anyone and don’t want anyone to object them as in some cases it has been seen that the elders are objecting the younger for not doing any specific thing.
One of the disadvantages of living in a joint family is the unequal distribution of shares in home- economy. For example many families we have seen that there is a single point of income, such as a common shop, a single earning hand, or some revenue periodically generated from fixed assets like rents and royalties. In such cases, the eldest member (or the earner) is usually the one, who takes after the economic power and responsibility to manage home funds, divide the share of each nuclear family (within the joint family) rationally. Most of the times, his inability in doing so, becomes the reason for family-partitions. This is inability however arise due to various factor including dishonesty of himself (or his own nuclear family) or some other family member inappropriate distribution of responsibilities and rights for each nuclear family, for expenditure. Share of each nuclear family within the joint family must be decided setting up the balance among the needs (education, clothing, and special preferences), number of dependents, contribution to funds, and the special eventual expenditures. This balance is really pivoted on a very sensitive fulcrum, which should be the result of a healthy exchange of honest thoughts of each responsible person in the joint family.
Each individual’s equal recognition is very important and also very important for not allowing any inferiority or superiority complex to creep into anyone’s mind. This particularly must be avoided at the level where, parents start expecting their child to be as bright as children of other couple in the same joint family, for instance. This sometimes, gives rise to silent bitter feelings and these feelings may end up causing differences.
Differences in opinion create a barrier among the family members and this is one of the important things which should be taken care of, by all the responsible members of the joint family in a matured fashion. The healthy brainstorming over the issue in question may give rise to an even healthier environment of living. The other way to conquering this problem is having a heated altercation, which makes conditions bad to worse, ultimately resulting in separations. “(Agarwal, V. 2005)
So these are the most common problems which are the reasons behind partition or separation or for avoiding for living in a joint family, but on the other hand, by doing so a person is getting away from his/her loved ones and accepting different kind of risk by living in a nuclear family and are also forgetting their responsibilities towards their loved ones and towards their whole family. Living in a joint family can lesser pressure financially or can be advantageous for an individual as the members contribute according to their income but it can also create problems among the family members for not contributing equally or due to less amount of money.
People prefer to live in joint families but because of their misunderstanding (i.e. differences in opinion,) among the family members an individual might avoid to live in it. But by taking its advantages into consideration, people do like living in joint families too.
Living in a joint family is financially advantageous for all the members of the family. As by living together the members contribute according to their capability and in this way they lesser pressure from each other.
People in our society face a lot of problems; financial one’s, social ones, family ones. One of the biggest problems is the decline of the family. In advantageous thoughts of nuclear family, two parents mean double the chances of a good income, over a single parent. It means twice the chance that a parent is home to teach the kids, be a good role model. It means less stress for both the adult and the kids. It means more diverse influences. A child needs a mother’s perspective and a father’s perspective , not just once, it’s not as balanced. Through most of our history and most civilizations, we have had extended families. Mom and dad lived with, or near, grandmother and grandfather, aunts and uncles, cousins; it was like having a gigantic family instead of a nuclear one. No strangers raising the kids, no worry of bankruptcy if someone loses a job, always someone there when you need them.
The nuclear , isolated or restricted family is not a recent phenomenon, but has existed in many cultures throughout human history. Indeed, the extended family of several generations is found mostly in relatively advanced, stable, and affluent, but not yet industrialized societies. Very primitive and very sophisticated societies seem to prefer the nuclear family model.
However, nuclear families can vary in the degree of their isolation and restrictedness. For example, before the Industrial Revolution the Western nuclear family was often embedded in a larger social unit, such as a farm or estate, an aristocratic court, or a village populated by relatives. Many older city neighborhoods also kept kinship ties strong, and thus even very small families remained open to the community. Family visits might be frequent and extended; children might freely circulate and feel at home in several households.
On the other hand, we have seen that, beginning in the late 17th century; a trend toward closeness reduced the size of many larger households and changed the relationships between the remaining family members. They became more concerned about each other. They needed each other more. The idyllic home of the bourgeois became an island of serenity in the gathering storm of modernization, a haven secure from the world out there , from aggressiveness, competition, and class warfare. We have also seen how this home sheltered women and protected the children from sexual and other temptations. Other nasty social realities were also kept safely at bay. The family income was no longer earned inside, but rather outside the house. The division of labor between the sexes became more pronounced as men spent more and more time away from their families as wage earners in factories, shops, and offices. Their wives became almost the only companions of their small children whose care and education was now their main responsibility. (Formerly, these tasks had been divided between mothers, grandmothers, nurses, and servants.) Virtually the only middle-class men who still worked at home were doctors and lawyers in private practice. As a rule, however, the bourgeois family saw its head and breadwinner only when he returned from his work at night. This work itself remained an abstraction to both his wife and his children.
In a typical nuclear family, there are two parents, and either one or both have jobs. So if someone loses their job, either the family has no income, or only half of what it had. But imagine a family with three or more parents, some of whom work. A lost job is less of a disaster to the family then. One of the biggest problems families face today is that nobody can stay home to care for the kids. It is a statistical fact that the second parent usually has to go out and work just to bring home about the same amount of money that the first parent is paying in taxes. This hurts the children, who end up being raised by random babysitters and day-care centers. But in an extended family, it’s much easier to be sure that someone’s always around to care for the kids, provide a good role model. Perhaps two adults work and one stays home, or each works at different times.
In a nuclear family there will be less scope for children to get advice and encouragement from the experienced elders. There will be problems in bringing up the children and absence of care and affection of the elders to the children. It is another question whether the nuclear family itself, even when complete , is still the best available option. Many people today are convinced that small, single households are uneconomical and wasteful, that they are still emotionally unhealthy, that they perpetuate outmoded stereotypical sex roles, and that they produce competitive, egotistical children in an age when universal cooperation seems the only hope of mankind. It is also argued that the modern family no longer has any other function than to provide love and intimacy, and that this is by no means enough to justify its existence. Indeed, since families have been largely relieved of their economic, educational, and protective functions by the state, sexual attachment has become the nearly exclusive basis of marriage, and this basis is notoriously weak. Frequent divorce and remarriage, however, while perhaps practical for the adults, hardly seem in the best interest of the children. Under the circumstances, it is only fitting that a number of thoughtful men and women should continue to search for more stable, new and improved family models.
Keep in mind:
This is only a sample.
Get a custom paper now from our expert writers.
Get custom essayLiving in a joint family not only is advantageous but also has disadvantages as well, but in order to achieve something one has to lose something too. The same is the case for joint families, by thinking about the advantages that a joint family provides one might to give up the idea of living in a nuclear family and unite with their loved ones. Living in a joint family is advantageous. In order to live happily and peacefully in a joint family an individual should not lose his temper and should overlook each others mistakes and also should understand each other. The family members should have good communication among themselves in order to ensure free flow of money around the family.
In this day and age, family bonding is more important than ever. As technology continues to advance and social media becomes more prevalent, it is easy to lose sight of the importance of spending quality time with our loved ones. That is why a family bonding essay is so necessary. We must remind ourselves of the value of connecting with our family members and the positive impact it can have on our lives. The dangers of social media and technology cannot be ignored, but we can take steps to limit their impact on our family time. By writing a family bonding essay, we can explore the benefits of spending time with family, share our experiences, and offer tips for others who are struggling to maintain strong family relationships. It is important to remember that while technology may make our lives easier, it cannot replace the warmth and love that comes from spending time with the people who matter most to us. A family bonding essay can serve as a reminder to prioritize family time and make the most of every moment we have together.
Get original essayOne of the most important reasons for the constant loss of family bonding time, is how easy it is to access social media no matter where you are, or what your doing. The utilization and availability of cell phones has soar as of late, as an ever increasing number of Americans presently turn on their phone to get to the Internet. The capacity to promptly get to the Internet while in a hurry denotes a significant move in the manner we sign on. All the popular apps such as Snapchat, Instagram, and many more are just two clicks away when you have access to a cellular device. When you child is having a conversation with one of their best friends, or liking instagram posts, and even sending a silly picture back to a cute boy. They will have a disconnect to what is going on around them. Whether you are sitting at the dinner table, having a family game night, or just talking with family, the ease of access allows children to go on their phone and lose that connection that they could be having with their family, and sacrificing that opportunity to connect with family and friends.
One of the biggest reasons that social media is eliminating family bonding activities is due to the lack of control on their children's usage. Due to the family members always using their phone with no control over them. Parents should decide what is appropriate for their kids, and keep that at a fine point, this will bottleneck the children from using their phone during family activities. On the off chance that your youngster is dependent, cut them off. A basic rule I hold to is that as a rule, when a kid can manage the cost of a gadget they are likely capable enough to have it. However, Parents need to model proper phone use. Start with what we can do. Abandon our mobile phones. Turn them off at supper time. Try not to pester the children with unlimited questions investigating them. On the off chance that we model restriction, perhaps our children will see it's conceivable.
Lastly, the constantly repetitive everyday use of social media is making teens susceptible to cyberbullying, and depression. At the point when individuals just associate with one another solitary utilizing web based life and with no genuine connection, individuals may lose significant social abilities and significant human holding with each other. The ability to see others' photos, remarks, and other individual data, makes security a significant issue. Individuals never again have private lives, since everyone post his own data on the web, where anyone could see it. In this day and age, security is an account of the past, individual data that was just common with not many chose companions in the past is currently accessible for collaborators and bosses to see. Internet based life has been connected to more elevated levels of dejection, begrudge, uneasiness, gloom, narcissism and diminished social abilities. These results with doom relationships with family and family members due to the nature of the subject being too depressed to function normally, and want to op-out of family relations.
Family relationships today are being destroyed by the impediment of social media, and cellular device usage. This will only continue to get worse if we don’t put the correct precautions in place to help eliminate this boundary crossing. Social media ruins family bonding because of the ease of access, lack of control, and negative effects on children and teens inside family environments.
Young children spend most of their time at home or in early childhood education programs. These are the two most influential environments where children develop. Family life is a major influencer in development and can greatly affect the child’s potential outcome as an adult.
Get original essayThink about your family culture growing up. Do you recall experiences that are still influencing your thoughts and actions today? Sometimes the effects of our childhood are obvious and sometimes it takes years of therapy to uncover. Now think about the family culture that you model for your children. If you had a positive experience growing up, I bet you’ve chosen to practice a similar culture with your own kids. If your childhood was not so great, you’re probably doing everything you can give to your kids a better upbringing.
Children develop dynamically, in an interactive process with the world around them. Each child is unique in the way they receive information. Observing the people and environment around them shapes how children think and behave. These thinking patterns become engrained in their very being and are carried into adulthood.
Let’s define it. There are many layers of culture that influences us. Nationality, religion, politics, cities, neighborhoods, your workplace, they all have a culture.
Two ways Webster defines “culture” are:
From these two definitions, we can define a family culture as a collection of shared knowledge, values, beliefs, rules and practices that characterize a family and guides each member’s behavior, attitudes and goals.
Simply put, it’s a family’s way of life. There are many factors that make up a family culture. I’ve boiled it down into five elements that will help you define your family culture. They are values, traditions, rules, norms and tolerance.
Family values pertain to the structure, function, roles, beliefs, attitudes and ideals of the family. They set the tone for how the family acts and behaves. The values practiced are the foundation for how young children learn, grow and function within the world. A family mantra is a fun way to reinforce this. You could steal Jackie Moon’s “everybody love everybody,” or come up with your own! Think about how you want family life to be. If you could leave your kids with one lesson, what would it be?
Traditions are what make your family special. They pave the way for memories. Sometimes, they are passed down from previous generations and can evolve over time. New traditions can be started. Traditions provide consistency and gives children something good to look forward to. Your family traditions don’t have to be fancy; it could be Taco Tuesdays or a silly bedtime routine. Family traditions help your family reconnect and remind you of what truly matters.
To keep your family strong, you’ll want to set clearly defined rules. Let them be known and understood by all. No electronics at dinner or in the car will encourage conversation. Eating only in the kitchen/dining room establishes boundaries, limits constant snacking and keeps your carpets and furniture crumb-free (hello, sanity!). Use “we” to establish inclusion. “We take our shoes off in the mudroom.” “We don’t hurt others with our words or actions.”
Norms are what is expected of people. Both spoken and unspoken rules. Norms set the standard for how individuals should carry themselves and what behaviors are either acceptable or unacceptable in certain circumstances. Children learn the family norms by viewing others in the family and testing the limits through their own behaviors. For example, if our daughter asked my wife for a cookie before dinner, she expects the answer to be no (she’s still hopeful and tries anyway). It’s no surprise that these norms are practiced outside the home- in school, daycare and at the grocery store. These expectations are carried into adulthood too- at college, work, and eventually in their own family. You can see why it’s important to model healthy norms early on. Be conscious of the norms you are modeling. Establish norms within your family, but also show them how diverse the world is and how other families have different norms.
Conformity varies greatly from person to person and from culture to culture. Children are not born with attitudes that reject differences, they learn through their own experiences and by viewing how the adults around them tolerate differences. How accepting are you of differences? What are you teaching the children that look up to you?
A strong family culture is the glue that keeps your family together. Although kids love to explore and test your patience (over and over), they find comfort in routines and stability. With a family culture, your kids know what to expect from you and in life. They know what you expect from them and what values are important. Think of your family culture as your default setting if you had a “reset” button. It’s a child’s comfort zone when they feel lost. Family culture gives them a sense of belonging and self-awareness.
The above elements mold children into the adults they will become. As children grow up and go out into the world, they use their family culture as guidance for dealing with the messy and the magical that is life. Establishing a strong family culture teaches children how to interact with the world. Since it becomes engrained in them, even those that distance themselves from toxic family members find that it’s hard to shake bad habits attributed to their family culture. It can take years, to get passed a limiting belief that you learned in your early childhood. Therefore, it’s important to create a family culture that is strong and meaningful. The carefree little minions that run around the house in their underwear today are going to be the leaders, innovators and decision-makers of tomorrow.
It is fundamental to include all foods that originate from all corners of the world, especially that we are privileged enough to be able to cheaply in the age of globalization. Foods that are eaten daily in my apartment include free range eggs, raw milk, lentils, chickpeas, salmon, tuna steak, broccoli, kale, brazil nuts, bok choy, rice, cherries, strawberries, blueberries, dates and lychees. Foods that are necessary to make a meal are a protein such as eggs, chicken, or fish; beans or rice; and a steamed vegetable. Smoothies are prepared daily. Since moving to this county, access to cheap produce has changed my dietary lifestyle positively.
Get original essayI consider produce to be high status, for reasons being that human society as we know it has been established from agriculture and the growing of food. I consider highly processed foods to be of low status, for the reason that human beings did not evolve eating highly processed food. I eat dinner with my girlfriend, whom I live with every single day. I do not avoid food for religious reasons, but I try to cut down on meat consumption for ecological reasons.
Turkey for Thanksgiving, the white bread standard. Home cooked meals 7 days a week are prepared between me and my girlfriend. We rarely go out to eat, occasionally sushi, but one cannot live frugally going out to eat consistently. As a child, depending on who I was with as my parents separated, my mom loved to go to restaurants and my dad always cooked. Ever since I have moved to a more plant based diet, I have not really gotten sick. But when I do have nasal and sinus congestion I make incredibly spicy Thai ginger soup to drain everything from my sinuses.
My favorite convenience and snack foods are bananas and nuts. I eat roughly 3 - 5 meals away from home per week, mainly if I am at work at the pharmacy. I feel as though I eat much better now than I did when I was young. I have learned a lot about nutrition from my girlfriend who has lived in Toronto for about 9 years. Toronto is culturally pluralistic, there is little racism. From there we try to add influences from India, SE Asia, the Mediterranean, and South America.
My last name, even though Italian, is dynastic and derives from the Greek which means friend of horses. I have learned nothing from ancestry.com that I didn’t know already, my great grandfather was a higher ranking lieutenant and cooked for Mussolini and his generals. I grew up on stories of how great Mussolini was, how he made Italians proud, and how poor the Italians were. Traditional Italian meals DO NOT INCLUDE tomato, as tomatoes were not in Europe until the Colombian Exchange. Italians ate alot of seafood, handmade pasta, cured ham known as prosciutto, olives, and dates. I have asked my grandparents and who emigrated from Italy, and they commented that their diet, during the Second World War, consisted of bread and poached animal.
My family regularly eats squirrels and pet bunny rabbits. My grandfather himself taught me that the white “pet” bunny rabbits are the tastiest because they do not have the gamey flavor that wild rabbits acquire. Similarly, pheasant is also considered a prize in my family, even though there were no pheasants in Italy and they are increasingly hard to find in the United States. Lastly, the family prides themselves in making their own wine, mead, and in growing their own mushrooms.
Heritage is one way I justify my diet. Not exclusive to my own heritage though, I try to eat foods that mankind has evolved eating from everywhere in our world. I love eating dates, goat cheese, and proscioutto. My favorite lunch in the world is an antipasti with olives, cheeses, and meats. My preferred ethnic food though is Indian cuisine, I love spices. Samosas are the best thing in the world and my spice cabinet is overflowing with so many incredible spices.
I pay loyalty to principles. Applying the principles of the scientific process, I have performed my first social scientific observation in a Vietnamese restaurant in my home town of
The restaurant is named *removed* , and caters to a mainly Caucasian clientele since moving out of the inner city. The food is colorful and is perceived as more dazzling compared to non-ethnic food. Visually, patrons would often show non-verbal signs of satisfaction upon the first glance at the fancifully arranged food.
The air smells of lime leaves, ginger, and lemongrass. It seems that some fruit are used as a vegetable. For example, a salad made solely from unripe papaya is delicious and a common appetizer spotted 12 times. People choose to interact with the hostess and the server but do not interact with any of the kitchen staff, similar to many restaurants. What surprised me was that patrons chose not to engage in prolonged interaction with the ethnically Vietnamese owner/manager who would regularly make rounds and ask patrons what they thought of their meal.
The majority of the clientele ate together. During the hour, 37 patrons, and 9 staff were observed. There were 6 couples and 5 groups of three of more. One thing I was interested in observing was alcohol consumption. Even though this is a small sample size, one thing that particularly surprised me is the increased incidence of wine consumption among couples compared to larger groups. In this statistic, I counted 1 table if at least one individual chose to consume an alcoholic beverage. 5 out of 6 couples chose to drink wine, while 2 of 5 groups drank alcohol. It’s impossible to place a p-value on this observational study, thank goodness it is not required.
Overall, social interactions between the “food providers” and “food recievers” was minimal.
This study has reinforced to me that I prefer food from all ethnicities. I have learned many others are willing to try, and love food from cultures other than their own. I prefer not to pay for the restaurant experience just because I cannot really afford it regularly. My biggest shock is that I realized how much I am set in my ways when it comes to food pathways. Even though geographically, many humans are physically close, but their foodways could differ. My next area of interest to incorporate into my diet would be food from the middle east.
“Your soul is the whole world” (Hesse 7). While the value of a soul is something that cannot be understated, the belief that it is the whole world does not leave room for many other people. In Hermann Hesse’s Siddhartha the titular character spends his life searching for answers from the world, only to discover that the answers were inside him the entire time. By the time Siddhartha reaches this conclusion however, he has abandoned everyone who has ever loved him, and he has done so in what he calls the justifiable name of the soul. Siddhartha finds his happiness, his peace of body, mind, and soul, but at an expense that is hardly his alone. He abandons his parents in favor of the Samanas; he abandons the Samanas and his best friend Govinda in favor of city life; he abandons city life and the relationships he has forged in it in favor of the unknown, only to find what he considers to be his place in the world, a life as a ferryman. Siddhartha throws his family away whenever he becomes struck by a bout of restlessness, and in doing so, he makes family seem irrelevant, unimportant and ultimately unnecessary. Siddhartha is immensely selfish, and does not deserve the contentment he finds living as a ferryman; rather, he deserves to eternally suffer the agony of abandonment he has impressed upon his mother and father, his friend Govinda, but most especially his child and the woman that gave birth to him.
Get original essayIn his first act of desertion, Siddhartha leaves behind his mother and father in order to find the way to fulfillment through the ascetic Samanas. With this departure from his idyllic village life, he sets a precedent he will continue to follow throughout his life. While leaving his parents is not incomprehensible, for he truly believes there is something more to the world than the ritualistic mantras and meditation of the Brahmins, it is the fact that it was done in vain that makes it awful to behold. ‘“When someone seeks…then it easily happens that his eyes see only the thing that he seeks, and he is able to find nothing, to take in nothing because he always thinks only about the thing he is seeking, because he has one goal, because he is obsessed with his goal”’ (140). Siddhartha only sees his own desire of answers, regarding his soul and the world in its entirety, but he never stops to actually see what he does as a result. He wants to see the world, to learn from it, to get what he wants from it, but as a Samana he learns only to be disgusted by it. This is what he leaves his family for: to become bitter, and to empty himself of any actual self, for this is what he and his fellow Samanas believe to be the path to “enlightenment”. As he feels himself learn to loath the same world he asks for the utmost of privileges from, to grant him wisdom and understanding, he recognizes that ultimately, he has accomplished little. Still, Siddhartha never stops to think that he might have been wrong, that maybe abandoning his mother and father was not the way to enlightenment. Siddhartha fails to grasp the unequivocal value of a family that loves him unrestrainedly, as he fails to fully appraise the value of the same kind of love from his friend Govinda. Govinda, who also leaves behind his home and family, his whole life, out of loyalty to Siddhartha, is also left behind by the once again absconding ungrateful narcissist. In an act that seems to just come naturally to him, Siddhartha leaves Govinda behind when he chooses to follow the Buddha, the so-called “illustrious one”, because he finds what he considers to be a flaw in Buddha’s preaching, proving both Siddhartha’s unrivaled arrogance and his inability to return the love and devotion that his friend bestows upon him unreservedly.
While Siddhartha’s wasting of the love given to him by Govinda and his parents is in its own right a tragedy, it is not nearly as revolting as his absolute annihilation of the love given to him by Kamala, but especially the love his son, his only child, his namesake, is never given the right to feel for him. Shockingly, disgustingly, Siddhartha later has the awe-inspiring audacity to say to Govinda that ‘“It seems to me…that love is the most important thing in the world”’ (147). Siddhartha finds his peace with nature, with the river, with the world he initially felt such repugnance for, but ultimately, this cannot possibly matter a single iota when it comes only from the deliberate, repeated forsaking of those that love and sacrifice for him. Siddhartha’s happiness comes at the expense of his child, and this is inexcusable. A parent is supposed to love his or her child more than anything and everything in the world combined, but Siddhartha loves nothing and no one more than he loves himself, however confounding such may be. Siddhartha never gives his son, the young Siddhartha, any reason to trust him; rather, he gives him every reason to doubt him. He is never there for him or Kamala, and all the blame for Kamala’s death and young Siddhartha’s callous sense of entitlement traces back to Siddhartha. It is his abandonment of Kamala that causes her to be in the woods when she is bitten by the venomous snake, as it his abandonment that leaves his son to be raised without any sort of acknowledgement or understanding of a world where everything is not provided upon any given whim of desire.
Therefore, it is Siddhartha’s own fault that his son leaves him, as he himself left his own parents. This, finally, brings about the pain that he has so long been deserving of, but Siddhartha quickly unburdens himself of the guilt and shame, the torment of abandonment, because he believes it to be in his best interest, when in actuality, the only thing in his best interest is for him to finally, however belatedly, realize exactly what it is he has done and to repent, to beg forgiveness from his son. ‘“Not in his speech or thought do I regard him as a great man, but in his deeds and life”’ (148). Siddhartha’s life and the deeds that define it do not point to greatness. His selfishness kills the mother of his child, and it steals in the most egregious manner his son’s absolute right, not privilege, to his father. This is unforgivable. At no point in his life, throughout all his searching and wandering, his fasting and meditating, or any of his supposed “awakenings” does Siddhartha realize the unparalleled value of a loving family.
Siddhartha consistently exchanges his family and the love it offers, the very emotion he considers to be “the most important thing in the world” for himself and his own narcissistic tendencies. Ironically, he blunders in this too. He fails to accurately appraise the value of the self because he sees himself and his soul as the most important thing when the most important thing is family, when the most important thing truly is love, but not love of the self. ‘“You show the world as a complete, unbroken chain, an eternal chain, linked together by cause and effect”’ (32), says Siddhartha to Buddha, the so-called “illustrious one.” Siddhartha says he understands what this means, but he is unable to realize that he is the cause of the effect of so much devastation. Ultimately, Siddhartha finds his peace and happiness as a ferryman, but he does not deserve to. The only thing he is deserving of is the understanding of what it means to abandon someone, and to realize that is what he has done time and time again, most horrifically to his own child, if according to biology alone.
The narrator of John Cheever’s “Reunion,” tells of the time the narrator reunited with his father only to be disappointed in the end. In the beginning of the story, the narrator mentions that his father was a stranger to him due to his parents being divorced. This brief explanation foreshadows the narrator’s negative experience with his father to the reader, as there is a reason that his parents were divorced in the first place. The narrator also mentions a “rich compound of whiskey” (Cheever 338) when he catches the scent of his father when they meet.
Get original essayThroughout the story the narrator is not seen speaking with his father, not even a single word, but the narrator’s silence says a lot of what he could possibly be thinking while he and his father are pub-hopping. The irony is that the narrator describes the joy of meeting his estranged father for the first time saying, “I hoped that someone would see us together. I wish that we could be photographed. I wanted some record of our having been together” (Cheever 338), but this joy transforms into disappointment, shock, disbelief, and regret towards the end of the story when he sees what his father truly is. The narrator begins by idolizing his father, knowing that he in some way will become like him in the future, continuing the legacy by saying, “I would have to plan my campaigns within his limitations” (Cheever 338). However, the narrator’s impressions of his father turn in the opposite direction as the narrator observes his father’s arrogant, disrespectful behavior towards the waiters as he demands the fuel to his alcoholic habit, he realizes that he should have expected the unexpected. The father also distances from his son, focusing more on ordering his drink and bringing him to the club rather than introducing himself, and catching up with his own blood. To the narrator, it seems as if his father isn’t even aware that he his meeting his own son, nor does it seem to be anything special to him. This ties into the repetition that occurs with the word “Daddy” towards the end of the story. When the narrator says, “That’s all right Daddy” (Cheever 339), when his father offers to walk him back to the train station, it signifies rejection, and that the narrator wants nothing to do with him anymore.
The second “Daddy” is mentioned when the narrator tells his father, “I have to go Daddy” (Cheever 340), signifies a sign of letting go and separation, and the finally the narrator permanently ends his father-son relationship by saying “Goodbye Daddy” (Cheever 340). The father could be seen as a reflection of the author, John Cheever, who also suffered from alcoholism, and could accurately depict the behavior of an alcoholic, and how such a habit creates gaps in relationships. Ultimately, the narrator learns never to have high expectations, as when we do not meet those expectations, we are unprepared to feel the disappointment. The author believed that his father would present himself mannerly, as an image of the son’s future self, a positive future. Someone that the son can relate to, look up to, and catch up with. However the son’s imagination got the best of him and all he could do was leave it as it was before the reunion with his father.