Self-Awareness and Cross-Cultural Development

By Jason Lyle

~ This essay—which was submitted as a thesis in the Master of Arts in International Community Development at Northwest University—is available on ProQuest Theses and Dissertations. ~

Introduction

My anticipation rose as our plane circled the small airport in Entebbe, Uganda. Just a few months before, I had agreed to take a trip to Uganda to teach a pastor’s conference with a missionary from my hometown. As the idea of going on a mission trip became a reality, anxiety and self-doubt came up within me. What would I see? What would I experience? Could I really help? Would I get sick? Will we be attacked by a group that is hostile toward Christians? All of these thoughts were still swirling through my mind as the plane came to rest on the dark Ugandan runway.

As the team disembarked the plane, there were strange sights and sounds everywhere. Soldiers walked the runway with assault rifles, the bright lights I was used to in the United States were nonexistent, and everything was darker than I was accustomed to. It was hot; I could smell smoke; and the airport was full of people pushing forward trying to get to the border booth to purchase their visa. It felt as if I was in some sort of dream.

Over the next few days, the team traveled to a number of different orphanages in Uganda. Hundreds of kids ran toward the bus, screaming with excitement to hold the hand of one of the team members. Once off the bus, kids hung off each of my arms while the adults hugged and welcomed the team members. We sat in a place of honor while kids danced and sang to entertain us. The missionary from our hometown gave a short speech before giving away money—large sums of money. Thousands of dollars were given to buy food, build new buildings, fix wells, and pursue numerous other projects the missionary was working on. The team handed out candy to the kids, which caused a chaotic scene where I feared the older kids would trample the younger ones. My time spent at the orphanages was a beautiful experience, and although I fell in love with Ugandans in the first few days of my trip, something did not seem right.

I went to Uganda not only with my physical self, but also with years of thoughts, beliefs, and motivations from my American culture. Growing up, I watched television advertisements showing kids with flies in their eyes, distended bellies, and snotty noses, children I could feed for a small fee per month. My mother taught me to eat all the food on my plate because there are “starving kids in Africa.” Cartoons I watched showed Africans in loincloths with bones in their noses. I was taught about the rampant HIV in Africa and how I could catch it from a toilet seat if I were not careful. I grew up in the Deep South of the United States where racism was strong when I was a child. It did not help that the missionary leading the trip warned us of how things in Africa would harm us, including robbers, food, malaria, and germs. As a result, I landed with the assumptions that Ugandan people were sick and needed to be better, that becoming better meant becoming more like me, and that Ugandans wanted to become more like me. In other words, I went to Uganda with the presumption that Ugandans needed to become better Americans. But Ugandans are not Americans. Ugandans don’t want to be Americans, and Ugandans don’t need to be Americans. They need to be Ugandans.

When I returned from Uganda that first time, I could tell friends and family what I saw, but I did not fully understand how my prior assumptions would impact my experience. I thought I was seeing things factually and objectively, but nothing could have been further from the truth. It wasn't until I returned to Uganda (and continued returning year after year) that I realized the stark differences in how the Ugandan people and I perceive one another.

Community development workers often skip the process of self-awareness, and as a result they become frustrated, often leaving the work they were once passionate about without realizing why they are frustrated. Sometimes they end up blaming the host culture, calling them lazy, apathetic, or other derogatory terms. These frustrations develop due to a gap between how the worker sees the work and how the locals see the work. If the two views do not match, frustrations can arise.

All over Uganda there is work that was initiated and abandoned by missionaries and development organizations with good intentions. Pastors who were once supported by churches now struggle to survive because support has been cut off due to cultural misunderstandings. There are buildings that sit empty or unfinished because construction costs were more than what was originally quoted (usually due to Ugandans’ trying to please their American supporters by asking for as little as possible). All of these things could be avoided if workers going to Uganda would first reflect upon their own cultural, spiritual, and motivational beliefs. After careful consideration, this reflection could lead to relationships with people who live in Uganda and allow for development to grow and prosper from healthier relationships.

The following pages are the findings from research I’ve conducted for my Master of Arts in International Community Development, along with eight years of personal and professional development. The reader will come to understand that in any cross-cultural community development work, self-awareness on the part of the development worker is essential to the success of the mission. If workers do not have a deep understanding of themselves and their own worldviews, they cannot begin to understand those with whom they work, thus limiting their effectiveness to serve.

For the purpose of this paper, self-awareness is defined as one’s ability to be aware of how their culture of origin, spiritual beliefs, and personal motivations influence their decision-making process. These factors impact one’s worldview and create dynamics that can cause friction in relationships. This friction is caused by protecting a worldview from change that may be incorrect. Cross-cultural relationships must be built on common truths, and those truths must be sought out through self-awareness in order to build relationships.

Each development worker is born in a specific location and family environment which influences the way they see life. This is culture. Culture exerts a strong influence in everyone’s life, as it determines what they eat or what they define as non-edible. It determines how they vote for their elected officials and what people groups they see as “in” or “out.”

Spirituality is a vital component and a common theme in all of humanity. The spiritual convictions of a person determine his or her actions. Whether one has an official religious affiliation or whether religion was scoffed at, all of humanity is influenced by a personal view of spirituality in one way or another. For example, development workers are often motivated by their religious conviction. Other workers are influenced by the way they view humanity, while some see development work as a business opportunity. No matter what their motivation is, every worker is being propelled by something.

The first section of this paper will focus on the self-awareness of the development worker. Three questions will be addressed to lead the reader toward self-awareness First, what from my culture causes me to adopt the behaviors I have? Second, how does my spirituality influence my decision-making process? And finally, why do I choose to engage in development work? Successful development can begin upon thoroughly asking these questions and making an honest evaluation of the answers. Some tools that have been helpful in doing self-evaluation will be shared to help the reader start the journey toward better understanding themselves.

The second section of this paper will shift off of the development worker and onto the people of the culture they choose to work with. Once the worker is aware of his or her own cultural, spiritual, and motivational trappings, they will be better equipped to also understand how culture, spirituality, and motivation shape the lens of each person with whom they work. This step is vital to not only shrinking the gap of misunderstanding but strengthening and deepening the relationship between the worker and each person they serve.

Just as the worker asks questions about their own behavior, beliefs, and motivations, they should also ask three similar questions about the people of the culture being worked with. First, what cultural influences cause this person to behave the way they behave? Second, how do their beliefs about God, gods, or spirituality impact their behavior? And finally, what are their expectations of the development worker? Once these questions have been answered, developmental success is much more likely. Therefore, the next step becomes learning how to uncover those answers in the context of the indigenous peoples.

In the conclusion, I will share a few encouraging insights that I have found throughout my research and through my work. The path of the development worker is not easy, some are in front of me, while others are behind me. It is my obligation to learn from those in front, and encourage those behind.

This paper is the result of many years of inward reflection along with eight years researching Ugandan culture. During my research, I observed Ugandans at religious gatherings, public gatherings, orphanages, and schools. I conducted over 18 interviews among a diverse group of people, which revealed a broad spectrum of views on the impact of self-awareness, cultural awareness, and motivational awareness on development in Uganda. I interviewed seminary professors, former witch doctors, a Muslim sheik, teachers, pastors, business owners, government community development workers, and a university professor. The following stories, interviews, research questions, and observations are a result of this process of inquiry.

. . .

Understanding Others  

The development worker must spend time knowing themselves by reflecting on personal behaviors, beliefs, and motivations. Likewise, spending time understanding the behaviors, beliefs, and expectations of the people in the culture in which the practitioner works is equally important. Every human being has behaviors, beliefs, and expectations inherent to their own culture. The importance of understanding differing behaviors is founded on the need for relationships. Development work happens when the other person ceases being a subject to be studied or converted, and becomes a fellow human being in need of love and relationships. Relationships with the development worker should be based on love, respect, and kindness.

Creating relationships is about finding commonalities between humans. While there are many things people from other cultures do not have in common, there is one thing all people have in common; humanity. Barbara Brown Taylor declares,

What we have most in common is not religion but humanity. I learned this from my religion, which also teaches me that encountering another human being is as close to God as I may ever get – in the eye-to-eye thing, the person-to-person thing – which is where God’s Beloved promised to show up. Paradoxically, the point is not to see him. The point is to see the person standing right in front of me, who has no substitute, who can never be replaced, whose heart hold things for which there is not language, whose life is an unsolved mystery. (102)

Humanity is the single most common thread that the development worker shares with all people. Therefore, it is humanity where one must begin to build relationships.

Development work is two stories becoming one. Bryant Myers writes, “The development process is a convergence of stories. The story of the development practitioner is converging with the story of the community, and together they will share a new story for a while” (55). The story that comes from the relationship with the poor is where development has the best chance for success. However, the convergence of stories cannot happen until relationships are formed, which requires time, commitment, and acceptance.

Anyone who has been married for an extended period can recognize the merging of two stories becoming one and the importance of relationship. For each member of the marriage to thrive, a strong relationship between the two parties must exist. If either person involved in the marriage experiences closed-mindedness or selfishness, the marriage will struggle and possibly fail. Marriage is similar to development work, though development work might be even more difficult. Married couples generally have similar backgrounds, but when the practitioner enters into another culture to do development work, he or she is entering into a world different from their own.

Airplanes are full of well-meaning people who routinely travel to developing nations to help “poor people.” These affluent people believe that they must go to these nations in poverty out of the poor’s necessity for them. While helping people is an admirable cause and the people may have pure intentions, damage can be done when there is a misunderstanding of cultures. Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert write, “As we work with materially poor people, it is crucial that we are not coming to them as blank slates” (87). Poor people in developing nations are viewed as problems to be fixed and not people to be known. Sometimes development workers travel to do development work while viewing the local people as a blank canvas to be created into something better.

Working with poor people is not about fixing those in need, but making relationships with those who share a common humanity. Workers must avoid seeing themselves as higher, smarter, or more affluent and must instead see themselves (and the local inhabitants) as imperfect humans in need of redemption. Meyers makes the observation that “The world tends to view the poor as a group that is helpless[,] thus giving ourselves permission to look down on them and even play God in their lives” (105). Development workers are not above the poor; indeed, all of humanity is interrelated and dependent on one another for life. The development worker is seeking to merge his or her resources with the culture’s knowledge to create a new life for both worker and beneficiary.

There are three questions the development worker should ask to better understand the people within a culture. First, what cultural influences cause this person to behave the way they behave? Second, how do their beliefs about God, gods, or spirituality impact their behavior? And finally, what are their expectations of the development worker? Once these questions have been answered,  developmental success is much more likely. Therefore, the next step becomes learning how to uncover those answers in the context of the indigenous peoples.

Behaviors of Indigenous Peoples    

Every person in every culture has deeply embedded behaviors that have been firmly established for years before an outside development worker arrives on the scene. This is true for varying socioeconomic groups across towns and for people living thousands of miles away. These behaviors come through years of social evolution and become normal in their eyes. Understanding these inherent behaviors will help the worker make connections that can bring about lasting development.

I saw the importance of understanding the behaviors of people during my fieldwork in Uganda. The population growth of Uganda is a subject I have struggled to understand for years. This struggle, at times, brought up feelings of resentment in me. It was difficult to understand why many Ugandans keep having children when they struggle to feed the ones they have. The population of Uganda in 2010 was 30.52 million, in 2017 it was 37.67 million, and is projected to reach 43.73 million by 2022 (Statista). These numbers are mind-boggling given the country’s rate of unemployment, death from starvation, and the staggering presence of orphans. However, equally perplexing was the answer to a question posed during an interview.

Lawrence Wanyama is an educated, soft-spoken, Ugandan man and the principal of Bright Hope Orphanage and School in Lumino, Uganda. I interviewed Lawrence to gain his perspective on the issues of poverty and population control in Uganda and to ascertain ways to propagate change. At an event a few days before what is called “World Population Day,” President Museveni had addressed the residents of Busia, Uganda. During his address, President Museveni told the crowd he was praying for more babies, citing China’s growing population and growing economy. The rationale of wanting to grow a population that is already struggling was hard to understand. When I asked Lawrence about the comments of the president, he told me:

The whole problem of the alarming increase of population has its origin from the days of slave trade. Even after my grandparents used to narrate, that during the time when the slave traders used to come here, the collaborators, from Myamwezze from Kenya, the Kamba, and the Baganda collaborating to buy people to take, the only valuable resource that was around was people, population. If you are many and built you a good homestead around and dig a fortress around, the slave traders would fear to come there, and then you would be safe. And therefore from that time, people developed a belief, that if you want to be strong, if you want to be known, if you want to survive, then you need to be many. (Wanyama)

Lawrence’s words were shocking. While I saw population growth in Uganda as a problem, it was seen as an asset for Ugandans and was used to protect themselves from slavery. I had an interesting perspective. I am a white American man and was looking down on Ugandans as ignorant. I was also learning of the real reasons for this perceived problem: Western slavery was the reason for the population of the country. Africans feel a higher population is the key to survival and success. I was shocked and humbled by my own ignorance. However, it was only through a willingness to get at the deeper layers of cultural behaviors that the ignorance was uncovered.

Creating programs for development without taking culture into consideration is akin to putting a Band-Aid on a mortal wound. Geert Hofstede states, “While cultural change sweeps the surface, the deeper layers remain stable, and the culture rises from the ashes like a phoenix” (26). Those deeper layers are what the development worker is trying to uncover. As long as those layers are left unnoticed by the worker they will continue to appear. As the worker attempts to make change, they will find themselves frustrated by what seems like stubbornness or apathy, when in fact the worker is struggling against layers of deep cultural principles.

The development worker is not trying to change those deeper layers, as this can be even more frustrating than leaving them unnoticed. They should instead seek to understand the reasons behind seemingly eccentric behaviors. These workers should also attempt to understand the people by forming relationships. As he or she develops the community, the worker should look for teachable moments and connection points to help the community evolve organically. This transformation should come from within the culture, not as a system imposed by the worker.

Development is happening before the worker gets to their destination. The work may not look like what the development worker would do, but it’s the work the people are doing based on their culture. This unique work is an important place for the practitioner to start. Myers writes, “The poor are people with names, people to whom God has given gifts, and people with whom and among whom God has been working before we even arrived” (106). The people of the culture have the knowledge to change themselves, whether they realize it or not, and the worker is researching that knowledge, capitalizing on it, and supporting it when necessary.

Hofstede affirms, “Nobody can develop a country but its own population. Development is in the minds, not in the goods. Foreign money and foreign expertise are effective only to the extent they can be integrated into local knowledge” (417). The minds of the people are the only place development can and will happen. Change will only occur in the deep layers of a culture when those layers are recognized and acted upon by the people of the culture. In this paradigm, the worker acts more as a consultant, social entrepreneur, and investment broker. The worker stops looking to change the culture and instead looks for fertile ground where the culture has potential for change.

 . . .

Works Cited (and Consulted)

African Mythology - myths and beliefs from Africa, www.a-gallery.de/docs/mythology.htm.

Barasa, Patrick. Personal communication, 12 July 2017.

Beck, Richard Allan. Unclean: Meditations on purity, hospitality, and mortality. Lutterworth Press, 2012. Print.

Bornstein, David, & Susan Davis. Social Entrepreneurship: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.

Chitakure, John. African Traditional Religion Encounters Christiniaty. Eugene Pickwick Publications, 2018. Kindle Ed.

Corbett, Steve, & Brian Fikkert. When helping hurts: how to alleviate poverty without hurting the poor ... and yourself. Moody Publishers, 2012. Print.

e.V., Transparency International. “Corruption Perceptions Index 2017.” Www.transparency.org, www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017. Accessed, 1 March 2018.

“Gandhi Didn't Actually Say ‘Be the Change You Want to See in the World." Here’s the Real Quote:” Joseph Ranseth, 24 Aug. 2017, josephranseth.com/gandhi-didnt-say-be-the-change-you-want-to-see-in-the-world/.

Groody, Daniel G. Globalization, Spirituality, and Justice: Navigating the Path to Peace. Orbis Books, 2015. Print.

Hawkeye, Timber. Buddhist Boot Camp. Harpercollins Publishers Inc, 2013. Print.

Heschel, Abraham Joshua. Man Is Not Alone A Philosophy of Religion. Paw Prints, 2008. Print.

“History » Howard Thurman Center for Common Ground | Boston University.” Howard Thurman Center for Common Ground RSS, www.bu.edu/thurman/about/history/.

Hofstede, Geert, Gert Jan Hofstede and Michael Minkov. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. McGraw Hill, 2010. Print.

Jarvis, Clive. Personal communication, 8 July 2017.

Keating, Thomas. Open mind open heart. New York, NY.: The Continuum Publishing Co., 1991. Print.

Kelley, Tom and David Kelley. Creative Confidence. Crown Business, 2013. Print.

Logan, David. “Tribal Leadership.” TED: Ideas Worth Spreading, www.ted.com/talks/david_logan_on_tribal_leadership.

Maskin, Ali. Personal communication, 12 July 2017.

Masereka, Robert. Personal communication, 8 July 2017.

McGaa, Ed. Mother Earth Spirituality: Native American Paths to Healing Ourselves and Our World. San Francisco: Harper, 1990. Print.

Merton, Thomas. No man is an island. Shambhala, 2005. Print.

Moe-Lobeda, Cynthia D. Resisting Structural Evil. Fortress Press, 2013. Print.

Mulage, Moses. Personal communication, 8 July 2017.

Myers, Bryant L. Walking with The Poor: Principles And Practices Of Transformational Development. Orbis Books, 2011. Print.

Nerburn, Kent. Voices in the Stones: Life Lessons from the Native Way. New World Library, 2016. Print.

Palmer, Parker. Let Your Life Speak. ; Listening for the Voice of Vocation. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2009. Kindle Ed.

Riggs, Benjamin. Finding God in the Body. Benjamin Riggs, 2016. Print.

Rohr, Richard. Divine Dance: the trinity and your transformation. Whitaker House, 2017. Print.

Rohr, Richard. From Wild Man to Wise Man: Reflections on Male Spirituality. St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2005. Kindle Ed.

Sinek, Simon. Start with why: how great leaders inspire everyone to take action. Portfolio/Penguin, 2013. Print.

Sunstein, Bonnie Stone and Elizabeth Chiseri-Strater. Fieldworking: Reading and Writing Research. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011. Print.

Taylor, Barbara Brown. An altar in the world: a geography of faith. HarperOne, 2010. Print.

Thompson, Marjorie J. Soul feast: an invitation to the Christian spiritual life. Westminster John Knox Press, 2015. Print.

Thurman, Howard. Jesus and the disinherited. Beacon Press, 1996. Print.

“Uganda - total population 2010-2022 | Statistic.” Statista,

www.statista.com/statistics/447679/total-population-of-uganda/.

Volf, Miroslav. Exclusion and embrace: a theological exploration of identity, otherness, and reconciliation. Abingdon Press, 2008. Print.

Wafula, Hillary. Personal communication, 11 July 2018.

Walsh, Froma. Spiritual resources in family therapy. Guilford, 2010. Print.

Wanyama, Lawrence. A personal Interview, 10 July 2017.

Looking Beyond Despair: Creating Home-Grown Solutions through Contextualized Development Approaches

By Edward S. Olara

~ This essay is an excerpt of a longer thesis submitted for a Master’s degree in International Community and Development; the longer paper is available on ProQuest Theses and Dissertations. ~

Toward the Creation of a New Model

“How can I help?” a friend desperately inquired. I could feel the deep compassion he had, but he did not know how to solve the problem before his eyes. For the first time, my friend was experiencing the disheartening circumstances of the people living in internally displaced people’s camps during the civil war in northern Uganda. This is not the only time I have been asked this question; I quickly recollected the many instances I have seen the expression of helplessness in my Western friends. At times their concerns and good intentions are expressed through the many endeavors to help poor communities. Countless well-meaning people want to make a change but do not know how. Personally, I am still in search of the best way to help those in need. My quest for answers also led me to be involved in this International Community Development (ICD) program. Now, I see the world more clearly, and I have gained a deep insight and acquired useful tools and ideas to approach the problem of poverty. In this section, I have incorporated my passion and the lessons I have learned in this program in my response to the aforementioned question. In addition, I have drawn from the last two sections to provide a contextualized model for enriching and equipping the local population to take charge of the transformation process.

The task of transformation requires the contribution of the indigenous population because sustainability depends on their participation. The model I proposed for this study is twofold. The first part of the model is providing indigenous people with education and skills training. As the world changes, it is important not to leave others behind or cut them off from civilization. Impoverished people need information, skills, and opportunities, not more aid. To address this deficiency, I propose a village-based imagination center, providing the opportunity for the poor to envisage possibilities and capabilities to build their dreams. Specifically, the focus of this project a contextualized business education to the illiterate population. The details of this training initiative are provided in Appendix I. The poor need entrepreneurial skills to become business savvy within their own local means, which would be achieved by engaging them in economic activities that are asset-based. According to Ssewamala et al., “[t]he asset-based approach to development… enable[s] individuals and local communities to take action to improve their life situation” (434). As described in the model found in Appendix I, local entrepreneurial training provides a valuable business education that utilizes local resources and networks.

A second aspect of empowering the poor involves providing access to micro-credit facilities. After acquiring business skills, many people fail to make the next move because of lack of capital. The chances are limited for the poor and illiterate population to access loans from formal financial institutions due to lack of collateral and steady income. Locally based credit facilities are needed (e.g., the Bangladesh Grameen Bank of Mohamed Yunus) to provide micro-credit loans at low-interest rates and without demands for collateral.  

Changing the counter-productive mindset

As part of the process of reducing poverty, it is important to change the mindsets and attitudes of people in poor communities that hinder their advancement. When I was a boy, my father told a hypothetical story of a wild animal caught in a cage. According to the story, the caged animal slammed its body against the walls, only to bleed and bruise, its hopes of escape shattered. Several months later, the cage was dismantled, but the animal’s fear of pain kept it from leaving the enclosure. This story alludes to the mindsets of some people in poor communities, especially in Uganda where this study was based. The fatigue from failed attempts to alleviate poverty still looms large in the country, which has a profound effect on the thinking process of many people.

Most scholars agree that the problem of poverty in Africa is rooted in the colonial and imperialist tendencies that have invaded the continent from the 1800s to the present. A common thread in the history of Africa shows that the spirit of innovation was crushed by imperialist governments from so-called civilized countries. The establishment of the Colonial Era in the late 1800s did more harm than good, turning Africans into slaves and strangers in their own land. Furthermore, colonialism led to a partitioning of the continent that was naïve of ethnic boundaries, resulting in political, geographical, cultural, and economic chaos that affect the continent to this day. During the cruel western hegemony, people were treated inhumanely for centuries. Any African who resisted the system was brutally punished and psychologically tortured. Today, African leaders that take a stand to defend the economic and political rights of their sovereign nations are often threatened by some Westernpowers.

The colonial era and the subsequent new-colonization tendencies continue to destroy the thought process of many Africans and stifle a natural disposition to create and initiate solutions to the problems that they faced. When we fail to see this kink in the cultural “DNA” of creativity in Africa, our good intentions fall short and the problem of poverty remains intact. The outside world continues blindly to pour billions of dollars of aid into the continent, which has done little to solve the crisis. Today, poverty, sickness, and death across Africa continue to prevail, while Africans have become almost entirely dependent upon handouts from foreign entities to nurse the symptoms of a chronic and deeply rooted problem.

During the Colonial Era, the local farmers were not in charge, and their roles were limited to planting and harvesting the crops. The colonial experts were in charge of the processing, transportation, and sale of finished products. Even after independence, as noted by Suruma, “The new country’s basic economic infrastructure—banks, factories, railways, plantations, and other critical productive entities—remained, as they had been during the colonial period, under the ownership and control of foreign[ers]” (28). Now that Africans are no longer under the yoke of imperialist governments and are in charge of their own fate, the mandate for development falls into their own hands. It is time to join the rest of the world in shaping a better future for the next generation. Twenty-first-century globalization offers the people in the global south the opportunity for enlightenment and information sharing. Governments and the private sectors should take advantage of the global economy to create development initiatives.

Creating local markets

Many people assume that because of globalization, the rest of the world has a fair shot at participation in trade. In reality, this involvement is not feasible for everyone, especially the local farmers in remote villages. Local markets need to be strengthened to promote local trading.  According to Fratianni, “Consumption, for example, has a strong domestic bias. Distance and borders are two important reasons for this bias and are a powerful deterrent to globalization” (8). Many local farmers in Uganda have no knowledge or understanding of how the global economy functions. These farmers live in remote places where information flow is hampered by lack of electricity, Internet access, infrastructures, modern means of transportation, and the language barrier. They cannot rely on the global market.

The problem of production and marketing is felt at the local level. According to the International Monetary Fund:

Most farmers in Uganda sell less than 50 percent of their produce and this is done mainly at the farm gate… poor people continue to face problems in processing, storing and marketing their agricultural produce… exploitation by traders, poor roads, unfavorable tax regime, lack of market information, unequal gender relations and lack of effective organization were identified as the major causes of the marketing problems. (95)

The unfairness of international trade causes poor farmers to be affected by dumped goods and foods from other countries. Dumped goods muzzle local production. When the local market is flooded with foreign cheap goods, local producers can no longer profit from their products and production halts. There is, therefore, a greater need to promote economic interactions at the local level through the constant movement of goods and services within a single geographical area.

Furthermore, a local market system such as a farmers’ market was highly recommended by the local farmers during my fieldwork. They believe that organizing themselves in farming communities is the first step toward boosting local sales of produce. In an interview, a local farmer named Gummaka lamented, “What good is it if you toil all year round only to see your crop rot because there is no market.” A general frustration seems to exist among local farmers because of lack of market. As a result, the local farmers see the need to organize themselves into farming communities as a starting point. The next step would be holding a monthly, organized farmers’ market to showcase and sell their best products to the local community.

There are many benefits when local farmers come together. As noted by Ochieng, “Farmer groups as an institution of collective action offer opportunity for smallholders to participate in the market more effectively. They can enhance market access for smallholder farmers, which in turn increases household income, food security, more employment and sustainable agricultural growth” (45). Once local farmers have organized themselves and improved the quality of their products, they can join the regional trading community, such as the East African Community or EAC. According to UN-OHRLLS, the East African Treaty “[o]utlines co-operation in trade, investment, and industrial development; monetary and fiscal policy; infrastructure and service; human resource, science and technology; free movement and of the factors of production …” (187). When local farmers in Uganda reach a high level of involvement in regional trade, they can raise themselves to a greater standard, resulting in more benefits.

 Overall, the improvements that begin at a local level prepare farmers to participate regionally and eventually internationally. When local farmers come together and begin to interact with their counterparts in the region, they benefit from information sharing, quality regulation, and foreign exchange.  

Promoting best practices

A key advantage of living in the Twenty-first century is the free flow of information. Because of globalization, we can learn from one another and share vital information, methods, and skills to improve human life around the world. In addition, since we share common challenges, we can learn from others who have had similar experiences. Accordingly, local farmers in Uganda can learn from other communities and individuals from around the world who are practicing successful agriculture. Local farmers can also look to several of their counterparts in Uganda who have implemented better agricultural practices. One such farmer is Andrew Rugasira, the proprietor of the famous Good African Coffee that now sells in the global market. Like many other farmers in Uganda, Andrew has learned the secret and power of agricultural investment in his own country. At a local level, farmers may adopt low-cost practices such as preparing their gardens in time for the first rain, wisely choosing crops (planting more crops with shorter gestation periods) and covering the topsoil to reduce water loss.

Due to prolonged drought, farmers have recognized the need to abandon perennial crops and to instead plant annual or seasonal crops such as sweet potatoes, tomatoes, beans, rice, and cabbage. As noted by Freyfogle, “The choice is understandable, since annual plants take hold more quickly and bear more abundantly than perennial do…” (7). The pictures below show some examples of the seasonal crops that I saw during my fieldwork. These farmers are enthusiastic about planting different seasonal crops and they are reaping a great harvest, sometimes more than once per year.

Local farmers are implementing another good practice: the maintenance of soil health. Sustainable agriculture starts with the soil by seeking to reduce soil erosion and making improvements to physical structure, organic matter content, water-holding capacity, and nutrient balance. Local farmers are improving soil health through the use of legumes, green manures, and cover crops: the incorporation of plants with the capacity to release phosphate from the soil in rotations. Some farmers are using compost and animal manure, adopting zero-tillage, and supplementing with inorganic fertilizers where needed.

It is inspiring that countries which once-agrarian communities leaped into modern economies, through agricultural transformation. As noted by Alam, “From a background of a colonial agrarian open economy, Malaysia formally started her industrialization journey in 1957 and proceeded phase by phase through the roadmap of development to realize her vision of becoming a ‘fully developed’ nation by 2020” (401). It is important to note that these countries did not have instant success. They had to overcome numerous challenges. Poor communities, however, can avoid their mistakes and utilize the practices that worked for those countries. Agricultural transformation takes hard work and has many stages, depending on the challenges in the region. One of these challenges may be drought, which can be alleviated through irrigation. Another could be soil exhaustion, which can be managed by the proper use of fertilizer. Additionally, a common challenge in these agricultural communities is poor road networks. However, the communities that have transcended these challenges can give vital lessons to others.

Strengthening local leadership

Strong, visionary leadership is a central part of the development process. Without capable leaders, there is little progress in a society. Post-colonial Africa has been and continues to be a victim of poor leadership, which is characterized by susceptibility to imperialist manipulation, lack of national spirit and patriotism, corruption, immature politics, and nepotism, among others. As the old saying goes, “the fish starts rotting from its head.” If the dream of community development is to be realized, young leaders need to rise up to assume the mandate of current and future leadership.

For sustainable development to be achieved in any local context, strong leadership must be a priority. When groups are formed, rules are set, and able leadership is critical for executing those rules. Leadership and rules are critical to the success of any group or society. Many group endeavors fail because rules and regulations are imposed upon rather than developed by members themselves. When members create the rules, it increases the likelihood of successful adherence by everyone. One of the weaknesses of externally funded programs is the imposed rules that are unfamiliar in the local context, causing greater cultural conflict. There is a need for informed local leadership and an establishment of culturally appropriate rules and regulations that are generated by the people themselves.

Furthermore, at a community level, leaders play important roles of mobilization, providing a sense of direction, guiding implementation of policies and programs, settling disputes, and fostering teamwork. As noted by Sinek, “The role of a leader is not to come up with all the great ideas. The role of a leader is to create an environment in which great ideas can happen. It is the people …, those at the front line, who are best qualified to find new ways of doing things” (99). This model is still lacking in the context of Ugandan leadership. Ugandan political and cultural leaders continue to operate under “high power distance” and assume ultimate power and control. According to Hofstede, “Power distance can be defined as the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Institutions are the basic elements of society, such as the family, the school, and the community” (chap. 3, par. 18). As indicated by Hofstede’s indices of cultural dimensions, Uganda falls under the East African category with a 66 on the Power Distance Index, or PDI. Some of the indications of high power distance in Ugandan culture are lack of freedom of expression (the fear of questioning leaders), autocracy, and victimization of the innocent. In my opinion, implications of high power distance are more negative than positive. Autocracy, for instance, is detrimental to development in many ways, for instance, it blocks many good ideas from “unpopular places” and from the led. As observed by Maxwell, “Leadership is influence – nothing more, nothing less” (17). Good leaders must be democratic and benevolent.

Many African leaders tend to operate under leadership myths of pioneering, position, and knowledge. For example, the current ruling power, the National Resistance Movement (NRM) of Uganda took over power in the 1986 guerrilla war. Children born after 1986 have never seen a another president. The NRM government claims that they are the pioneers and revolutionaries who have earned the right to lead the country. Unfortunately, no one is allowed to question these motives as freedom of expression and speech is muzled. While elections are held, the votes are a mere symbol of democracy.

When a country lacks civil, social, and economic participation, development comes at a slower pace. Perhaps this explains why democratic and lower power distance societies experience more robust growth and development than their counterparts with high power distance, like Uganda, where leaders only seek to bolster their reign and profit from public resources.  

In community development work, leaders also play an important role in unifying the people. Because community development is a collective responsibility that brings together people who may not share a similar belief background, it requires leaders who understand all groups and can create a diverse team. Groups are often divided because of interpersonal issues, which is why we need servant leaders who can bring harmony and engage everyone productively. The old African leadership model tends to exalt leaders above the law and that gives them a false sense of control, but when it comes to enforcement, such leaders are rendered powerless because they lack the moral authority to command respect and following.

Weak leaders also perpetuate the cycle. In this new model, I argue that young people should be engaged and trained. In Uganda, for instance, there are very few leaders who lead by example. As a result, potential leaders are left without mentors to teach them. To avoid repeating similar leadership styles in the future, leaders need to intervene and mentor young adults. In an interview, Ongom asserted that “[t]he time is now for selfless people to invest in the younger generation because if we don’t, Africa will experience worse leadership crises in the future than we already have.” During our time of potent leadership discussion, Ongom expressed deep concern that today’s leaders have failed in their primary role of modeling a better future because they have led for their own gratification. Indeed, Africa’s underdevelopment is tied to its poor leadership, and only by improving leadership can Africa experience transformation in other areas, beginning with the minds of the people.

Helpful leadership tips: essential for community development

a) Credible leadership

This section is based on my own leadership journey and experiences. The transformational journey and society as a whole are fruitless and void without trustworthy leadership. In his book The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, Maxwell observes that “[e]very message that people receive is filtered through the messenger who delivers it. If you consider the messenger to be credible, then you believe the message has value” (146-147). When a leader is not trustworthy, well-meaning people find it hard to follow them or buy into their vision. As a growing leader, I place more importance on my personal credibility than on my vision or plans.

b) Strength-based leadership

In the book Living your Strength: Discover your God-given Talent and Inspire Your Community, Winseman et al. explore the idea that successful people build their lives around their strengths and focus on their talents. The authors also provide a strength-finder exercise that enables readers to explore their own signature strengths. During my work in Africa, I met people in leadership positions who lacked the qualities necessary to sustain them in those roles. As noted by Winseman et al., “Only by knowing your talents and strengths and by living through them can you be the best that you can be” (12). Certain qualities are required in leadership, and a leader ought to possess both charisma and the skills to be able to lead effectively. In community development work, strength-based leadership goes a long way in yielding fruitful conversation and successful processes.

Over the years, I have learned that the best place to begin the leadership journey is self-discovery. Winseman et al. note that “When you discover your talents, you begin to discover your calling. When you build and apply strengths by making the most of your greatest talents, you fulfill your calling” (228). I find truth and comfort in this assertion because people are more effective when they function within the area of their expertise and calling. Unfortunately, many people are placed in fields that do not align with their inherent strengths and talents.

c) The motive and expectation of a leader

Those who assume a leadership position void of the necessary qualifications and strength are bound to fail at their job. However, those who take up leadership roles without credibility and character cause more damage. When a leader is motivated by self-enrichment, rather than the will to serve, people suffer. The world is in chaos because of leaders who lack a strong sense of “why” they are in leadership.  Indeed, leadership must start with a strong sense of “why” because a clear sense of purpose refines motive and yields greater fulfillment. The two most important questions I have learned to ask myself are: why? and why not? In other words, if I plan to do something, I ask myself: Why am I doing it? When I choose not to do something, I also must ask myself: Why not? The ability to answer these two questions is the definition of purpose. If I feel like my feet are drifting off the course of my commitments and my joy and fulfillment are waning, I quickly realize that my sense of “why” is unclear or is clouded with life’s difficulties. In addition, when fear and uncertainty of the future cloud the focus of a leader, that person begins to lose their balance. A leader must keep a constant focus on their purpose. Essentially, leadership is not effective without a deep sense of purpose and commitment to the greater good.

Furthermore, when the conviction of a leader is not imbued with the urgent mandate to serve humanity, leadership becomes a self-seeking agenda. I am afraid of becoming a self-seeker and not a servant of the people. I prefer the latter because I know that ultimately all that matters is what I have done for others during my lifetime and the final approval from the Lord. Further, as a Christian leader, I am aware that my call to serve comes from God, who also holds me to a high standard of accountability. As noted by Sinek, “When a WHY goes fuzzy, it becomes much more difficult to maintain the growth, loyalty, and inspiration that helped drive the original success” (50). Therefore, leaders must keep a constant check on their “why,” regularly evaluating their motives and actions and moving in the right direction.

d) Leading from outside the box

A leader of the people must keep an open heart and mind. As pointed out by the Arbinger Institute, “[w]hen we are in the box, our view of reality is distorted – we see neither ourselves nor others clearly. We are self-deceived. And that creates all kinds of trouble for the people around us” (49). The work of community development, especially the need to interact globally with people of various backgrounds, requires us to receive others into our inner circles. Leaders play a critical role in unifying society. This task begins by appealing to the human goodness in all people. Leaders must create a culture and environment where people are treated with respect and dignity, not as objects. To be successful in our work, we need others, not just their contributions, to have a mutual relationship. As noted by the Arbinger Institute, “… as long as I am focused on myself, I can’t fully focus either on results or on the people to whom I am to be delivering those results” (109). Therefore, our success as leaders depends on the ability to exist collectively.

e) A growing leader

To make a lasting impact in the community, a leader ought to be selfless, humble, and have a strong will to do the right thing. This does not happen overnight, and successful leaders keep making changes in their lives. They work toward self-actualization. Until a leader is selfless in serving others, there is still room to change and to grow. Most leaders, especially in Africa where I culturally subscribe, need to grow in the area of self-actualization. Leaders who do not seek self-gratification carry a strong power of influence. Such leaders are described by Jim Collins as Level 5 leaders. Leadership is judged by the level of influence, not power. As observed by Collins, “If you’re engaged in work that you love and care about, for whatever reason, then the question [of greatness] needs no answer” (209). Our lives should move people to follow us, not the loudness of our voice.

f) Gainful partnership

Sometimes helping hurts. How can those who have good intentions avoid being stuck in the muck of frustration because their efforts are not working? In this model, I argue that partnership and developmental work must focus on contextualization. The rich and poor people in a community, country, and the world need each other. The poor must be consulted in community development. A contextualized and careful collaboration (which does not perpetuate dependence), can benefit poor communities in unprecedented ways. For example, by collaborating with richer and more developed countries and agencies, poor communities can access new information and modern technologies that can enable them to begin transformation. The involvement of foreigners, however, ought to avoid perpetuating the dependence mentality. In an interview, Kristen Marks, an American friend of mine who works in Uganda, noted that,

Community development should be community driven. It should be based on what the community needs, and most importantly it is all about participation. By encouraging participation, we give and maintain the dignity of the people. We foreigners should act in ways that are respectful to the people by acknowledging their unique abilities given by God to be creators. A lot of times we want to do things for the people without their participation, that is just wrong. By doing this, foreigners suppress local creativity by flooding their economies with subsidies and finished products. Development should be done in a way that promotes human flourishing. In the economy of God, there is enough to go around. Another important aspect is to acknowledge that the traditional Christian and family values are important in development. (Marks, personal communication, 27 July 2017)

Her statement connects well with the message of contextual development embodied by this study. It is a message that all those who wish to be involved in developmental work should bear in mind: that it is imperative for local people to be at the center of that work. Many mistakes have been made because foreigners and the locals themselves have not understood the essence of sustainable collaboration for local development.

Once a local community has been supported with the necessary tools, knowledge, and resources they need to get started, it is critical that the foreigners lessen their control and leave room for the locals to flourish. As observed by Glenwinkle, the president of Village Care International, “We understand that the catalyst necessary to effect change is to allow people’s natural capacity to solve their own problems emerge” (Villagecare.org). Unlike some international organizations that tend to spoon feed the poor, Village Care is among the few organizations that focus on empowering the people to look inward for their own natural capacity. This approach appeals to me deeply because I believe that when relief and other forms of assistance are mishandled, they can exacerbate instead of reduce the problem.   

 

Works Cited (and Consulted)

Alam, M. Mahmudul, et al. Malaysia's Proactive Economic Zone Regime as a Model to Emulate for Success of Bangladesh Economic Zone Scheme. Journal of Developing Areas, vol. 48, no. 2, Spring2014, pp. 399-407. EBSCOhost, library.northwestu.edu/scripts/proxy.php?link=http://search.ebscohost.com.nu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=95102323&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Bornstein, D. & Davis, S. Social Entrepreneurship: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press. 2010.

Buchanan, Tom. Europe's Troubled Peace: 1945 to the Present. Wiley. 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.nu.idm.oclc.org/lib/northwestu/detail.action?docID=822670.

Cheru, Fantu, and Renu Modi. Agricultural Development and Food Security in Africa: The Impact of Chinese, Indian and Brazilian Investments. Zed Books, 2013. Africa Now. EBSCOhost, library.northwestu.edu/scripts/proxy.php?link=http://search.ebscohost.com.nu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=621412&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Chollet, Derek H. and Lael Brainard. Global Development 2.0: Can Philanthropists, the Public, and the Poor Make Poverty History? Brookings Institution Press, 2008. EBSCOhost, Library.northwestu.edu/scripts/proxy.php?link=http://search.ebscohost.com.nu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=276808&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Collins, Jim. Good to Great. Why some companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t. HarperCollins Publishers Inc. 2001. Print.

Dale, Ann, and Jenny Onyx. A Dynamic Balance: Social Capital and Sustainable Community Development. UBC Press, 2005. Sustainability and the Environment. Retrieved from. http://search.ebscohost.com.nu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=382595&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Dasgupta, Partha, and Ismail Serageldin. Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective. World Bank Publications, 2000. EBSCOhost, library.northwestu.edu/scripts/proxy.php?link=http://search.ebscohost.com.nu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=26739&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Fabricius, Christo. Rights Resources and Rural Development: Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa. Routledge, 2004. EBSCOhost, library.northwestu.edu/scripts/proxy.php?link=http://search.ebscohost.com.nu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=108843&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Fratianni, Michele. Regional Economic Integration. vol. 1st ed, JAI Press Inc, 2006. Research in Global Strategic Management. Retrieved from: http://search.ebscohost.com.nu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=166991&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Freyfogle, Eric T. The New Agrarianism: Land, Culture, and the Community of Life. Island Press, 2001. EBSCOhost, library.northwestu.edu/scripts/proxy.php?link=http://search.ebscohost.com.nu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=972698&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Githuuri, Noah. Uganda, The Food Basket of Africa: Real African News. What Mainstream News Won’t Tell You:  July 20, 2017.

Groody, Daniel G. Globalization, Spirituality, and Justice: Navigating a Path to Peace. Orbis Books. 2007. Revised Edition. Kindle.

Gummaka, Lawrence. Personal Interview 07/22/2017.

Hammond, Sue A. The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry. Thin book publishers. 2013. Print.

Holy Bible. God’s Word Translation. YouVersion, Life.Church, 2016.

International Monetary Fund. Uganda: Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Annual Progress Report. Article IV Staff Country Report. September 2003.

Isbister, John. Promises Not Kept: Poverty and The Betrayal of Third World Development. Kumarian Press. 2006. Seventh Edition. Print.

Kelley, Tom, and David Kelley. Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential Within Us All. Crown Business. 2013. Print.

Kiva. Q & A with Mohamad Yunus. http://www.kiva.org/about/how.

Lin, Nan. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge University Press, 2001. Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences. Retrieved from. http://search.ebscohost.com.nu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=74320&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Lynch, Kevin and Julius Walls, Jr. Mission, Inc.: The Practitioner’s Guide to Social Enterprise. Berrett K-oehler. 2009. Print.

Marks, Kristen. Personal Interview. 7/27/2017.

Maxwell, John C. The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership: Follow Them and People Will Follow You. Thomas Nelson, Inc. 1998. Print.

Moe-Lobeda, Cynthia D. Resisting Structural Evil: Love as Ecological-Economic Vocation. Fortress Press. 2013. Print.

Moyo, Dambisa. Dead Aid: Why Aid is Not Working and How There is a Better Way for Africa. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. 2009.

Myers, Brant L. Walking with the Poor: Principles and Practices of Transformational Development. Orbis Books. Revised Edition. 2011. Kindle

Mugambe, Kenneth. Uganda’s Economic Reforms. Inside Account: Poverty Eradication Action Plan. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development. Edited by Kuteesa Florence. 2000. Google Book.

Nicholls, Alex. Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. OUP Oxford, 2006. EBSCOhost, library.northwestu.edu/scripts/proxy.php?link=http://search.ebscohost.com.nu.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=186622&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Obua, Johnson. Focus Group Discussion 7/20/2017.

Ogweng, Eddy M. Personal Interview 7/29/2017.

Okalo, James. Personal Interview 7/29/2017.

Ongom, Chris. Personal Interview 7/28/2017.

Ongora, Nickson. Personal Interview. 7/18/2017.

Opio, Alfred. Personal Interview. 7/21/2017.

Pretty, Jules N. Regenerating Agriculture: An Alternative Strategy for Growth. Hoboken, Taylor, and Francis, 2013. https://nu.on.worldcat.org/oclc/25316006. PP, 1-21

Rugasira, Andrew. A Good African Story: How a Small Company Built a Global Coffee Brand. The Bodley Head Vintage. 2013. Print.

Kimani, Njogu., Catherine. Bosire, and Alexander. Luchetu Likaka. Citizen Participation in Decision Making : Towards Inclusive Development in Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: Twaweza Communications, 2013. Web. Kimani, Njogu., Catherine. Bosire, and Alexander. Luchetu Likaka. Citizen Participation in Decision Making : Towards Inclusive Development in Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya: Twaweza Communications, 2013. Web.Ssewamala, Fred M., et al. The Potential of Asset-Based Development Strategies for

Poverty Alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Social Welfare, vol. 19, no. 4, Oct. 2010, pp. 433-443. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2397.2010.00738.x.

Sinek, Simon. Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. Penguin Books. 2009. Print.

Snow, Luther K. The Power of Asset Mapping: How Your Congregation Can Act on Its Gifts. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2004. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.nu.idm.oclc.org/lib/northwestu/detail.action?docID=1676298.

Suruma, Ezra Sabiti. Advancing the Ugandan Economy: A Personal Account. Brookings Institution Press, 2014. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.nu.idm.oclc.org/lib/northwestu/detail.action?docID=1675472.

The Arbinger Institute. Leadership and Self-deception: Getting Out of the Box. Expanded Edition of the Book that is Changing Lives and Transforming Organizations. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. 2010. Print.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics: National Population and Housing Census 2014 Analytical Report. Accessed 1/14/2018. www.ubos.org

UN-OHRLLS. Thematic Meeting on Transit Transport Infrastructure Development: As Part of the Preparatory Process for the Midterm Review of the Almaty Program of Action. Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 18-20 June 2007. www.un.org/ohrlls.

Village Care International. www.villagecare.com.

Volf, Miroslav. Exclusion and Embrace. A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. Abingdon Press. 1996. Print.

Whitten, Neal. No-Nonsense Advice for Successful Projects. Management Concept, Inc. 2005. Kindle.

Winesman et al. Living Your Strengths: Discover Your God-Given Talents and Inspire Your Community. Gallup Press. Third Edition. 2008. Print.

World Bank. Yes, Africa Can: Success Stories from a Dynamic Continent. Edited by. Punnam Churhan-Pole and Manka Angwafo. World Bank, Washington, DC. 2011. Google Book.

Just Civil Disobedience: Building a Framework for Non-Violent Civil Disobedience

By Rebeca Ilisoi

~ This submission is an excerpt of a longer work, which Ilisoi completed as a graduation requirement for a degree in Political Science from Northwest University. ~

Abstract

The most drastic difference between theories on just war and civil disobedience is that the latter holds no commonly accepted framework. Well-developed in historical and contemporary scholarship, the principles of just war theory are widely accepted as the framework to use when considering the justness of war. Though writings on civil disobedience have alluded to or begun the creation of tentative frameworks, a full-fledged framework has not been established. Rather, these frameworks are scattered and tend to follow one of three patterns: (1) the literature does not refer to a framework whatsoever; (2) the literature suggests principles that could belong to a framework; (3) or the literature speaks to a framework, but denounces its effectiveness or necessity. Literature belonging to one of these categories lacks the legitimacy of just war theory. My argument seeks to fill the gap existing in this literature by creating a framework for just civil disobedience. This framework will use the principles of just war theory and principles taken from other literature and philosophy to address when and how it is justified to disobey the government through the use of non-violent civil disobedience.

Just Civil Disobedience Framework

Just Civil Disobedience Framework: Before the Act

Distinction Between Individual and Group

A state, like an assembly line, functions best when every worker adheres to their specified task and the societal norm. When citizens disobey their government, the assembly line breaks, and the state is unable to function properly. This relationship is described in contractual terms in Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan as an unspoken contract that exists between citizen and state.[1] This contract functions best when citizens trust the state to govern well, and the state trusts its citizens to abide by its laws. However, just execution of civil disobedience creates a necessary tear in this contract. The first principle—distinction between individual and group—protects the state from unnecessary tears. This principle is essentially that an individual considering resistance must hesitate to act when their reason for wanting to disobey the government does not have a broad base of supporters. Giving a greater level of leniency to causes that are supported by a group safeguards governments from outlandish or insincere acts of civil disobedience. This principle protects the state from extremist dissenters who might look to civil disobedience whenever a law does not align with their values.

Critics will be quick to point out extreme examples in an attempt to disqualify this principle. Let us consider this hypothetical situation:

It is the Civil Rights Era in the United States. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and all other prominent mobilizers of the Civil Rights movement are non-existent. African Americans and others supportive of the black cause are scattered and disorganized. Those willing to engage in acts of civil disobedience are few because fear of social, political, and physical harm places a chokehold on their actions. There are, however, a small number of individuals willing to disobey the government.

Critics will ask if the principle of distinction disqualifies the smaller number of individuals from just acts of civil disobedience. The answer is a resounding “No.” Furthermore, though the actual number of people engaging in acts of civil disobedience in the hypothetical is small, their number represents a larger body sharing a similar cause. Lastly, a smaller weight is placed on the need for a large number of supporters because the cause of the small group is so just and significant.

 The response to the hypothetical is contextually dependent. Therefore, it remains to be seen how an individual or small group is justified in disobeying the government based on the distinction principle. Two considerations can be applied to individuals to assist in determining the rightness of their actions: going public and scrutiny.

Going public ensures that some broader political purpose is the driving force behind acts of disobedience. Such concentrated attention reveals the cause that people are trying to champion and deters those who desire to disobey the government on a whim. However, if a cause deserves to be addressed, dissenters will not be deterred by the possibility of negative attention.

Scrutiny refers to the level of consideration or special attention that should be paid to different types of disobedience. Scrutiny should be applied in the following manner: strict scrutiny is applied to individuals or small groups without a broad base of support; heightened scrutiny is applied to individuals or small groups with a broad base of support as well as large groups without a broad base of support; and general scrutiny is applied to large groups with a broad base of support. Broad base of support indicates that a cause is being supported by significantly more people than those actively resisting. Groups are least to most justified in disobeying the government according to their level of scrutiny; those strictly scrutinized initially assume the least amount of justification while those generally scrutinized initially assume the most.

To supplement understanding, let us consider a real-life example that demonstrates civil disobedience. In 2015, Judge David L. Bunning of the United States District Court had Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk, arrested for her refusal to grant a gay couple a marriage license for moral and religious reasons. The judge’s response to Davis’s plight has been denounced by conservatives and supported by liberals. Davis’s refusal to uphold a law is regarded as an act that champions the cause of many conservative Christians who do not support same-sex marriage for religious reasons. When looked at through the lens of the distinction principle, we can see that Davis went public and was performing at a heightened scrutiny level. The publicity that her actions received demonstrated that even if her actions do not have a broader political purpose (publicity is an indicator of a broader political purpose, but publicity alone does not satisfy this requirement), they do not occur on a whim.

 Every act of civil disobedience deserves its own consideration. The context within which resistance occurs persuades how heavily the principle of distinction influences the overall justness of an act. In his development of contract theory, Rawls posits the following:

It is clear, then, that I want to say that one conception of justice is more reasonable than another, or justifiable with respect to it, if rational persons in the initial situation would choose its principles over those of the other for the role of justice. Conceptions of justice are to be ranked by their acceptability to persons so circumstanced [emphasis added].[2]

Rawls indicates that, similar to the principle of distinction, there are conceptions of justice that are more reasonable than others, and rational people tend to pick the better conception. We determine rationality by trusting that something is rational once more people subscribe to it. However, this is not an impenetrable means of determining rationality, and relying on the majority is not always the safe solution. For this reason, the distinction principle also allows for an individual’s disobedience, though their rationality must be scrutinized more closely.

Political Purpose

Acts of civil disobedience must have a broader political purpose, not a personal one. This principle distinguishes civil disobedience from crime and revolution. In The Morality of Civil Disobedience, Robert T. Hall explains that a political purpose demonstrates that civil disobedience is “undertaken for moral rather than for criminal reasons.”[3] He elaborates the point further:

…the distinction between civil disobedience and crime is important from a moral perspective. As with the difference between civil disobedience and revolution, the burden of proof that his act is one of civil disobedience and not the act of a common criminal might be said to fall upon the agent.[4]

Providing a political purpose is one way the “agent” can prove their actions are not criminal. Without this principle, civil disobedience would amount to nonsensical antagonism that tears at a state’s integrity and ability to function. People might take to the streets and never know when to return home because no political agenda would ever be satisfied.

This principle is best understood by considering scenarios—some with a political purpose and some without. In Ethnic Conflict and Protest in Tibet and Xinjiang: Unrest in China’s West, Ben Hillman outlines the Tibetan protests that have been ongoing since 2008. Hillman maintains that the “discontent has been characterized by ‘ethnic protest’ (i.e., protests against the state and its policies).”[5] Many Tibetans protest “against Chinese government policies or Communist Party rule.”[6] Some scholars believe that the protests express a desire for Tibetan independence from China, while others disagree with the assertion that Tibetan unrest is solely due to separatist desires. Though the protests have been characterized by violence—both self-immolation and rioting—they provide a good example of the type of delineated political purpose that is necessary for disobedience to be just. Though Tibetan protests cannot be classified as just simply because they fulfill one principle in the framework, we can agree that they have a political purpose and move on to discern if they satisfy the framework’s other principles.

One of the more obvious backlashes to the political purpose stipulation is the question of how a political purpose can be determined as sincere. However, this issue is not as important as it initially seems. A political purpose does not need to be noble, just, or satisfying to fulfill this section—it must simply exist. It may seem arbitrary—even silly—to include political purpose as a principle. Can’t a political purpose be conjured with relative ease and possess the appearance of sincerity, even if that sincerity is false? If this is the case, and intelligent and discerning people are “fooled” by an act of civil disobedience’s false political purpose, then the other principles of the framework are capable of filtering it out. However, sometimes civil disobedience does not have a political purpose attached to it. This principle exists for that reason.

A good example of protest without a political purpose is the Occupy Movement, or Occupy Wall Street (OWS), which began in September 2011 in Zuccotti Park, Lower Manhattan. A group of protestors set up a tent in the park and rallied against the economic one percent. OWS quickly spread across the nation and then the world, with protests occurring in Barcelona, Madrid, and other major European cities. Though their actions were generally legal and non-violent, hundreds of protestors were arrested for “‘illegal lodging.”’[7] The classification of OWS as civil disobedience is debatable, but to illustrate my point, let us assume that OWS was a demonstration of resistance. The most important consideration under this section is whether the movement had a political purpose. Though the movement was undoubtedly economic in nature and pointed to the disparities between the top one percent and the bottom 99 percent within society, what the protestors desired to achieve is unclear. Hundreds of news sources speculated about OWS’s desired outcomes—to no avail. Overall, the movement amounted to a coordinated airing of grievances. If the government is unable to understand the purpose for actors’ civil disobedience, the credibility of civil disobedience as an extension of civic duty is lost.

Right Authority

In the context of just war theory, right authority refers to those who possess the right to declare and participate in war. This right is traditionally reserved for states and hinges on the notion that war can only be declared by those that lead or represent the state as a whole. When transferred to civil disobedience, right authority asks who has the right to disobey the government.

Does the right of civil disobedience extend to visa holding or undocumented immigrants? This section is one of the most difficult to distinguish. Which allowances society should afford to immigrants is a timely, contentious, and emotional discussion. One perspective argues that it would be unreasonable for individuals who have no claim over the functioning of a government through regular means, such as voting, to have a claim by illegal means. However, this perspective increases in complexity when considering what role visa holding foreigners or illegal immigrants have in society. Most would agree that immigrants are deeply integrated in at least one part of society, whether through education, employment, or community involvement. If an individual is thus integrated into society, should they be allowed to express their attitude toward the government and its functionality?

The state’s interest in suppressing civil disobedience and a citizen’s interest in engaging in acts of resistance is order. Agents of resistance desire a better order and an emphasis on equality. If a cause is significant enough, they are willing to forsake order in favor of dissent. If a person were justified in participating in the resistance of a state that is not their own, then the order necessary for a well-functioning society would be compromised. Furthermore, the contradiction of an illegal immigrant not being able to vote yet being able to illegally express their political beliefs is too great to be negligible. However, when a group of undocumented immigrants is integrated well into society and has a cause that is supported by citizens, that group is likely to be justified in their resistance.

To put this in perspective, let us consider the recent example of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) protests. DACA is an act within the United States that allows illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. at a young age to pursue their education in this country and eventually become U.S. citizens. This program was ended by the Trump administration, enraging Dreamers and their supporters. In response, protestors rallied in hundreds of cities throughout the nation. While these protests were legal marches, let us assume that they were not for the sake of illustration. In this case, the undocumented immigrants would still be justified under the right authority principle.

In just war, the right to declare war is reserved for the state and is determined by the support of those whose lives would be affected by a declaration of war. Similarly, the right to exercise disobedience is most justified when citizens are the resistors, but that right extends to include undocumented immigrants and refugees when they are legitimately interested parties, meaning that their lives are so integrated that they are significantly affected by the policies, statutes, and laws of a state.

Just Cause

To justify blatant disobedience to the government, a just cause must be present. Just cause is, perhaps, the most significant principle in just war theory, and it holds as much weight when applied to civil disobedience. A just cause must be beneficial to a group or society as a whole. This is to protect against arbitrary disobedience or the presence of personal vendettas targeting the government.

Since just cause is intrinsically moral, discerning whether a cause is just differs based on the subjective discretion of each individual. This makes the creation of a just cause standard, against which all acts of civil disobedience can be measured, difficult to create. I propose a threefold system of deliberating if a cause is just, which includes partitioning acts into separate categories—very compelling, compelling enough, and not compelling. Very compelling causes are concerned with basic human rights. A group must have been hurt in a way rectifiable by the state. This type of hurt most often manifests itself in the form of unjust laws. The American Civil Rights movement is the quintessential example of a cause that is very compelling. This cause championed the basic human rights of the black community, who continued to live disenfranchised and segregated lives despite hundreds of years of slow advancement toward equality. In Martin Luther King’s Civil Disobedience and the American Covenant Tradition, Barbara Allen states:

More than a test of law was at stake in King’s civil protests, however; King asked Americans to judge themselves and their institutions according to values and commitments that transcended and informed constitutional choice.[8]

This quote demonstrates how very compelling causes go beyond “a test of law” because of their transcendental nature, differentiating them from compelling enough causes.

Compelling enough causes justify civil disobedience when a person or group is hurt by the state in a manner not tied to basic human rights. This hurt results in moral concerns regarding the laws and statutes within a society that threaten moral or religious beliefs. Individuals engaging in civil disobedience are most likely to fall into this category. This year, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided a case that is compelling enough: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Jack C. Phillips, the owner of a cake shop in Colorado, refused to create a custom-made cake for a gay couple in celebration of their pending marriage. Phillips claimed that the creation of an artistically symbolic cake would violate his religious beliefs. The couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, filed a suit against Phillips, alleging sexual-orientation based discrimination that violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. In a 7-2 decision, the Court narrowly ruled in favor of Phillips. This case exemplifies the moral nature of causes that are compelling enough.

Lastly, not compelling causes for civil disobedience are various and plentiful. Thoreau helps us ascertain these causes when he says that if a hurt or injustice is “part of the necessary friction of the machine of government,” then those affected are not justified in disobeying the government regardless of their cause.[9] Therefore, deciphering if an injustice belongs to the regular functioning of the government becomes the subsequent concern. A key indicator that an injustice is not a part of the government’s regular functioning is the case of delayed justice, a concept popularized by King. With the understanding that “justice delayed is justice denied,” cases of delayed justice are not considered part of the necessary friction of the government.[10]

The compelling system is not perfect, but it provides a needed and helpful trajectory for discerning just causes. Those considering the justness of an act of resistance must be aware of the moral values at stake and the effect that shifts in values may have on society.[11]

Right Intention

Right intention is one of the just war principles that is most founded on moral and religious convictions. Similar to just cause, right intention refers to a state’s intent for going to war. Just cause explores the specific reasons for going to war, such as liberating a city from wrongful occupation, while the right intention for pursuing that cause might be restoring peace. Therefore, intent refers more to the condition of the heart. Religion emphasizes the effect intent has on a person’s soul; for this reason, right intention has heavy moral and religious ties. In secular society, right intention has been embraced partly because intent is closely linked to the overall morality of an action. A court’s decision to include the intent of a defendant in a criminal trial demonstrates that the moral implications of actions matter to the state. When applied to civil disobedience, right intention shares a close relationship with just cause.     

Right intentions cannot be written as an exhaustive list. They may include the restoration of peace or the righting of an injustice. Wrong intentions may include hating the enemy, exacting revenge, or reaching for power. Formulas for determining right intention are difficult to create because of the contextual nature of intent; therefore, each individual act of civil disobedience must be examined to determine its morality.

Mahatma Gandhi coined the term satyagraha, which translates to “insistence on truth.” Satyagraha was a primarily religious movement that called Indian citizens to focus on the highest and most noble truths available and to shape their acts of resistance to accommodate those ideals, which included principles of non-violence and truth. In his article “Buber’s Dialogue and Gandhi’s Satyagraha,” V.V. Ramana Murti explains the significant effect satyagraha had on India:

The significance of the satyagraha that Gandhi led in India can be best appreciated only if viewed in its relation to the British Government. This technique of non-violent resistance was in direct contrast to the methods of either constitutional agitation or terrorist violence employed by the nationalist movement in India before Gandhi…It was the uniqueness of Gandhi’s satyagraha that it tried to transform a potential situation of conflict between two nations into a real dialogue. The way of violence works as a monologue, but the nature of non-violence is a dialogue.

With the principles of satyagraha in mind, Gandhi led the Salt March of 1930. Indians marched for hundreds of miles while making salt, in direct violation of the British ruled government. Thousands of protestors, including Gandhi, were arrested for their actions. The march was in response to Britain’s Salt Act of 1882, which prohibited Indians from making or selling salt, a staple element. Britain had come to monopolize the salt market, driving the price of salt up, with a salt tax further increasing the price. Two of the intentions for the march were economic security and freedom from oppressive governance. These intentions are just because they are driven by transcendental values and the best interest of the state’s citizens.[12]

Last Resort

In just war theory and in application to civil disobedience, the principle of last resort indicates that a state must not go to war until all other diplomatic means have been exhausted. It is important to note that viewing last resort through a lens of only reasonable diplomatic and political means is unwise because “…constitutional means are hardly ever technically exhausted…”[13] Consider an American citizen with a cause great enough to drive them to resist the government. They might first petition their legislature for change before moving on to appeal to the courts and the head of the state. If their actions are fruitless, they might return their efforts to influencing the legislature. Eventually, this cyclical democracy will take on a new form of bureaucratized oppression.

In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King Jr. outlines the four steps to a non-violent campaign: “collect[ing] facts to determine whether injustices are alive, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action.”[14] Once an injustice is determined, people are obligated to first try to solve this injustice through proper political channels—lawmakers, courts, and the like. If that fails, or if proper channels are non-existent, then the campaign may move on to self-purification. To King, the self-purification process refers to cementing the campaign’s intention and dedication to non-violence. This step is a good place to determine the justness of a non-violent campaign. If the first three steps are satisfied, then the campaign may move on to direct action.

King’s concept of delayed justice is also applicable. Delayed justice considers whether causes are limited by time. If the number of those affected by a cause increases over time, then should the time spent waiting for legal justice decrease? Furthermore, does diplomacy that ends in a denial of those petitioning an injustice indicate a delay in justice? These questions are some of the hardest to answer. Former Justice Potter Stewart, of the Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion on the regulation of obscenity, wrote, “I know it when I see it,” as a way of indicating the difficulty of creating a standard for a contextually dependent issue.[15] This phrase—though, perhaps, dissatisfying because of its ambiguity—is applicable to the last resort principle. According to Paul A. Freund, a law professor at Harvard Law School, another indication that citizens have reached the last resort stage is when “‘demonstrators have no effective voice in the government.”’[16] He expands upon this statement by stating that, “‘fidelity to the law is an obligation based on reciprocity, on the right of participation.”’

Civil Disobedience Framework: During the Act

Proportional Response

In warfare, proportional response indicates the minimum necessary response needed to effectively engage in combat with the enemy. When applied to just civil disobedience, the justified response does not expand in proportion to the quality of the injustice in the same manner as warfare. A response may only increase in volatility up to a certain point. This point varies in liberal and non-liberal democracies, but always stops before reaching violence. Violent civil disobedience is not justified and would quickly blur the line between acts of resistance and criminality.

Gandhi’s words in The Story of my Experiments with Truth explain why violence is the stopping point:

Whereas a good deed should call forth approbation and a wicked deed disapprobation, the doer of the deed, whether good or wicked, always deserves respect or pity as the case may be…it is quite proper to resist and attack a system, but to resist and attack its author is tantamount to resisting and attacking oneself. For we are all tarred with the same brush…[17]

Regarding civil disobedience, the respect Gandhi mentions closely resembles lingering obligation. Those affected by injustice recognize the contractual elements of government-citizen relationships. Though injustice mars the contract, this relationship—which is meant to be one of reciprocity—should still be acknowledged by those suffering from injustice. This acknowledgement is demonstrated by shunning violence, because violence renders the obligations of the contract nearly useless.

In 1381, England’s feudal system was a large contributor to the oppression and prolonged dire economic straits of England’s peasants. The Black Death of the 1340s resulted in extreme political tensions between peasants and their superiors. The excessively high tax rates thrust upon the peasant population to cover leftover expenses from England’s Hundred Years’ War with France contributed to further unrest. On May 30, 1381, the frustrations of the peasants reached a tipping point when John Bampton, a royal official, attempted to collect unpaid poll taxes. In response, peasants across England violently revolted by destroying and looting property, burning government documents, and killing government officials. This example of resistance meets many of the principles of just civil disobedience but fails in its proportional response. The use of violence undermines all noble intention and causes a near irreparable tear in the fabric of society. Violence is unjustified because of the specific moral implications and the effect violence has on society.

A common concern is whether violence is a justified response to governments that are extremely corrupt, unjust, and oppressive. This is a worthy consideration, but it bridges into a territory that strays from acts of civil disobedience and into acts of rebellion and revolution. Rebellion and revolution are distinctly different from civil disobedience; where civil disobedience seeks to maintain the state as a whole with changes made to specific parts of it, rebellion and revolution seek to usurp the entirety of the state or most of its elements.[18] Rebellion and revolution are, perhaps, civil disobedience taken to the next level.

Civil Disobedience Framework: After the Act

Perceived Impact on Society

In Plato’s Crito, Socrates contemplates civil disobedience.[19] Imprisoned for a crime he did not commit, Socrates is visited by his friend Crito, who arranges an escape route for Socrates. Socrates weighs this decision critically, considering his moral opinion and the impact his escape would have on society. He decides not to escape because he thinks doing so would be too detrimental to the order of society. Socrates asks, “Do you think that a city can still exist without being overturned, if the legal judgments rendered within it possess no force, but are nullified or invalidated by individuals?” Socrates continues by making the following statement that pits him against civil disobedience in all contexts:

You must either persuade it [government], or else do whatever it commands; and if it ordains that you must submit to certain treatment, then you must hold your peace and submit to it: whether that means being beaten or put in bonds, or whether it leads you into war to be wounded or killed, you must act accordingly, and that is what is just; you must neither give way nor retreat, nor leave your position; rather, in warfare, in court, and everywhere else, you must do whatever your city or fatherland commands, or else persuade it as to what is truly just; and if it is sinful to use violence against your mother or father, it is far more so to use it against your fatherland.[20]

            Plato is not alone in lecturing about the impact civil disobedience may have on society. While explaining the discussions he has had with his free neighbors, Thoreau notes:

…I perceive that, whatever they may say about the magnitude and seriousness of the question, and their regard for the public tranquility, the long and the short of the matter is, that they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences of disobedience to it to their property and families.[21]

Thoreau’s friends worry about how their participation in civil disobedience will affect their family and property. Rawls also maintains that social impact should be taken into consideration by saying that if serious disorder were to ensue, then resistance should not be tried. Rawls describes his position with the following quote:

I assume here that there is a limit on the extent to which civil disobedience can be engaged in without leading to a breakdown in the respect for law and the constitution, thereby setting in motion consequences unfortunate for all.[22]

Socrates’ decision demonstrates the tension between obeying the government and suffering unjustly. When considering the perceived impact principle, one must consider the detriment that resistance poses to a government’s functionality, but also whether engaging in resistance will change the values of society for the better. This latter caveat speaks to Thoreau’s concept that urges us to “consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil.”[23]

There are those that will claim that the perceived impact on society points to the effect civil disobedience will have on those that fall into the majorities of society. They will say that this principle unwisely appeals to majority sentiments, when minorities need the most societal protection. However, this framework takes sufficient precautions in its considerations of individuals and minorities. Other civil disobedience principles have dealt specifically with this concept, but the perceived impact principle deals with society as a whole because of the shared interest of maintaining order that exists within the government.

 [1] Cahn, Steven M. Political Philosophy: The Essential Texts. Third Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2015. 312-343.

 [2] Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice.

[3] Hall, Robert T. The Morality of Civil Disobedience. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. 1971. 27.

[4] Hall, Robert T. The Morality of Civil Disobedience. 27.

[5] Hillman, Ben. Ethnic Conflict and Protest in Tibet and Xinjiang: Unrest in China’s West. New York: Columbia University Press. 2016. http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=9268fb31-d0d2-4b9c-a3a5-4925880f85c4%40sessionmgr4009&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=1195740&db=nlebk

[6] Hillman, Ben. Ethnic Conflict and Protest in Tibet and Xinjiang: Unrest in China’s West.

[7] Earle, Ethan. “A Brief History of Occupy Wall Street,” Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. 2012. http://www.rosalux-nyc.org/wp-content/files_mf/earle_history_occupy.pdf 6.

[8] Allen, Barbara. “Martin Luther King’s Civil Disobedience and the American Covenant Tradition.” Publius 30, no. 4 (2000): 71-113. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3330933. 72.

[9] Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Resistance to Civil Government. 233.

[10] King. Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

[11] A later section on the perceived impact on society will further outline the effects of value changes. I have chosen to mention that concept briefly here, because doing so demonstrates the inter-connectedness of all the principles and how a successful framework must consider them together.

[12] For more on human rights and morality and their interplay with government see Samuel Moyn’s Last Utopia: Human Rights in History and for more on oppressive statecraft see James C. Scott’s Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed.

[13] Hall, Robert T. The Morality of Civil Disobedience. 78.

[14] King. Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

[15] Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184 (1964)

[16] Hall, Robert T. The Morality of Civil Disobedience. 80.

[17] Gandhi, M.K. The Story of my Experiments with Truth. 230.

[18] David Lyons in “Moral Judgment, Historical Reality, and Civil Disobedience” sheds light on this concept.

[19] Cahn, Steven M. Political Philosophy: The Essential Texts. 22-30.

[20] Cahn, Steven M. Political Philosophy: The Essential Texts. 22-30.

[21] Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Resistance to Civil Government. 236.

[22] Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. 374.

[23] Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Resistance to Civil Government. 233.

Bibliography

Allen, Barbara. “Martin Luther King’s Civil Disobedience and the American Covenant

            Tradition.” Publius 30, no. 4 (2000): 71-113. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3330933.

Cahn, Steven M. Political Philosophy: The Essential Texts. Third Edition. New York, NY:

            Oxford University Press. 2015.

Earle, Ethan. “A Brief History of Occupy Wall Street,” Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. 2012.

            http://www.rosalux-nyc.org/wp-content/files_mf/earle_history_occupy.pdf

Hall, Robert T. The Morality of Civil Disobedience. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. 1971.

Hillman, Ben. Ethnic Conflict and Protest in Tibet and Xinjiang: Unrest in China’s West. New

            York: Columbia University Press. 2016.

http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=9268fb31-d0d2-4b9c-a3a5-4925880f85c4%40sessionmgr4009&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=1195740&db=nlebk

Gandhi, M.K. The Story of my Experiments with Truth. Navajivan Publishing House. 1927.

Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U. S. 184 (1964)

King Jr., Martin Luther. Letter from Birmingham Jail. 1963.

Lyons, David. “Moral Judgment, Historical Reality, and Civil Disobedience.” Philosophy &

            Public Affairs. vol. 27, no. 1 (Winter, 1998): 31-49. Wiley.

Moyn, Samuel. The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. Harvard University Press. 2010.

Murti, V.V.R. “Buber’s Dialogue and Gandhi's Satyagraha.” Journal of the History of

            Ideas 29, no. 4 (1968): 605-13. doi:10.2307/2708297.

 “Oral Argument—Audio Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.”

Supreme Court of the United States. December 6, 2017, accessed March 17, 2018.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2017/16-111

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Original Edition. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press,

1971. http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=64d0d286-7c54-4400-b233-15f98e47a227%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=282760&db=nlebk

Thoreau, Henry David. Walden and Resistance to Civil Government. W.W. Norton & Company,

Inc. 1992.

Do the Benefits of Police Body Cameras Outweigh Their Harm?: A Review of the Literature

By Evie Dotson

Author Note:

            This paper was prepared for English 103 at Tacoma Community College, taught by Professor Matson, and edited by students of ENGL 3453 at Northwest University during the fall semester of academic year 2018-2019.

Abstract

This paper points out the benefits of the use of body cameras in police departments. The personal, hands-on experience of police officers will be addressed with statistics supporting the evidence. The harms of body cameras will be pointed out and refuted. The estimated cost of body cameras will be brought to the attention of the public and will prove to be worth their cost. Some cities have adopted experimental cameras to see the results. Further in the paper, these results are brought up and are positive. The cameras that have been implemented as experiments have given ample proof to why they should prosper. All these reasons will conclude that body cameras should be put to use no matter the disagreement.

Do the Benefits of Police Body Cameras Outweigh The Harms?

Police body cameras are a relatively new idea in order to keep police officers in line. States should make them mandatory throughout their police departments. Trust is not the issue here; police officers deserve the public’s trust. The cameras are a viable solution if an incident arises where there is only one witness, the victim. Police officers are divided about this topic. The cameras are a newer idea, so, of course, some trial and error can be expected. Cost is a factor and will be a slight setback. Nonetheless, after the cameras are up and going, the technology will be worth the money it tool. The benefits of the cameras still outweigh the harms. This paper considers whether body cameras should be mandatory for police officers by responding to the following questions:

1. How do police officers feel about body cameras?

2. Is cost the main reason people are hesitant about their use?

3. Who would body cameras be helping?

Police officers and civilians may be skeptical at first about body cameras, but a review of the prevailing literature will help both skeptical parties.

How Do Police Officers Feel about Body Cameras?

Local police officers are naturally going to be defensive at first to this intrusive technology; no one wants to be monitored at all times while working. It has nothing to do with guilt; it is basic human nature that people do not like to be filmed while doing their jobs. Deputy Trout of Kitsap Sheriff’s office said that he agrees with the idea of body cameras because he has nothing to hide while doing his job. Trout explained how the Dash Cam has saved him from wrongful accusations. For instance, when Trout used to write a speeding ticket, he could later receive complaints on his yelling and being rude. Since being equipped with the surveillance equipment, his chief could review his camera and mic. In the new scenario, however, the mic reveals that he was nice and courteous, so he does not get in trouble. For Trout, the cameras are no big deal because he does his job correctly. Similarly, Officer Dotson of the Auburn School District said, “People are just paranoid; no one likes to be watched unless you’re an actor.”  Officer Dotson’s view on body cameras is more factual than subjective. He pointed out that it is not against the law to film anyone in a public place. Therefore, if body cameras are installed widely, there is nothing anyone can do about it. It is important to note, however, that body cameras’ footage would only be used for law enforcement purposes only.

Officers Trout and Dotson both share similar stories where dash cameras have saved their colleagues or them in tense situations. Dotson gives an example of how he has seen the cameras work well. When his friend stopped a woman for a traffic stop, it ended up that she had an outstanding warrant, so the officer was going to arrest her. She happened to be someone whose father was somewhat important in the community. She was not being compliant whatsoever with the arresting officer. Moreover, her dad came down to the traffic stop where he proceeded to exacerbate the already stressful situation even further. She was disagreeable, as was her father. After the incident of her getting arrested, the family wanted to pursue a lawsuit. The Chief of Police reviewed the video, however, and determined that the cop followed procedure by the book and kept his cool the whole time. Trout went on to explain the camera was the deciding factor: “I think it’s a good idea, but not the ultimate answer.”

A study was conducted of a police department’s adopting these cameras for a short time. The results showed “two in three officers who wore the cameras said they would want to continue wearing them in the future[; a] majority also said the agency should adopt body cameras for all front-line officers” (Wing, 2015, p.1). Eric Adams, former New York Chief of Police, voices his opinion, saying, “Police departments have no choice but to embrace the notion not only that scrutiny is inevitable, but also that it will lead to better policing… include[ing] the adoption of body cameras” (Adams, 2015, p.2). Joe Fiumara, Captain of Lake Havasu in Arizona, said that he really believes this could be a game changer and the next big thing that officers will see in community policing (Kingdom, 2012, p.1). Despite high-profile endorsements such as these testimonials, some cops remain unconvinced. 

Is Cost the Reason People Are Hesitant?

It is natural for people not to agree with change. The Salt Lake Tribune agrees: “[W]hen a near-universal consensus emerges around any new idea, some skepticism is usually in order” (Bloomberg, 2014, p.1). Everyone gets so comfortable with how things are that they are afraid to accept anything different. No matter what it is, people will boycott change at first until otherwise proven wrong. Bullet-proof vests are an excellent example. Nowadays, a uniformed officer would not be caught on duty without a vest. Back in the 1970s, Officer Johnson’s life was saved by the vest. Back then, they had the same arguments over vests that swirl around body cameras: They are expensive, and cops did not like that they were mandatory. The cameras are similar because they will be expensive and mandatory. People will not agree with body cameras until they are put into effect and proven to be an asset. It is no doubt that technology is expensive. Noelle Phillips of the Denver Post states: “The department estimates it would cost from $500,000 to $1 million to provide the cameras for the remaining officers and an additional $330,000 to maintain the cameras for non-patrol officers who work off duty” (2015, p.1). Clearly, law enforcement is choosing to calculate cost differently: “Despite a hefty price tag, more than 1,000 out of 18,000 U.S. police departments across the country, including New York City, are starting to wear body cams, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and a recent NBC report” (Williams, 2014, p. 2). Body cameras will have a rough roll out because of the costs. Small towns may not be able to absorb such exorbitant costs (Gehrke, 2015, p. 2), but with time and grants, the cameras can become standard issue

The fear of being videotaped is a factor in the decision of making body cameras mandatory. Mayor Bowser of the District of Columbia proposes that the footage shot in private areas will not be shown to the public; footage that was captured in a public place will not have the same regulations (2015, p.2). Police Chief Mark Magaw believes the money would be well spent if body cameras were to be put into use. Magnew maintains that with the help of federal funding, his department will be outfitted with the body cameras in about a year (Bui, 2015, p. 2). Time will tell whether the technology is worth the financial investment.

Whom Would Body Cameras Be Helping?

The footage of a body camera could be used to the officer’s advantage in case an altercation includes merely the officer and the witness, who may also be the victim. The cameras will take out the “he said/she said” dilemma and provide solid, admissible evidence. True, corrupt people operate in any profession, even law enforcement. Therefore, when the judge takes the officer’s word over a civilian’s word, problems may arise. This arrangement also can go both ways. The body cameras will eliminate false accusations toward the officers. Dana Liebelson of the Huffington Post noted: “Police reform advocates and law enforcement officials say such cameras can deter cops from using unnecessary force and protect them from false abuse complaints” (2015, p. 1). According to Garrett Keating of the Oakland Tribune, “93 percent of the police misconduct cases where video was available were exonerated and 50 percent of complaints were immediately withdrawn when the complainant learned of the existence of video evidence” (2014, p. 1). Christopher McFarland suggested that “officers should embrace body-worn cameras as another tool that can help them gather more evidence, give the legal fact finder a new vantage point from which to make decisions, and aid in the successful prosecution of cases” (2015, p. 2).

Recently, police officers have been featured in the media for cases of noted brutality. Through repeating these stories to fill a news cycle, the media may inadvertently show just one side of the issue: the civilian’s point of view. Egberto Willies, news reporter of the Daily Kos, noted, “[I]n distorting that reality, it willfully stereotypes and divides society” (2015, p. 2). Willies’s statement is powerful; he contends that news media outlets purposely divide society. That view seems extreme. However, one must concede that the effect of publicized brutality has been the creation of an unfortunate stereotype: that every police officer is racist and violent. We need objective cameras to show the officer’s point of view and correct these misconceptions.

Figure 2: A chart explaining incidents using force and citizens’ complaints dropped drastically when cameras were put into effect (Lopez, 2015, p. 3).

As shown in Figure 2, the use of body cameras has drastically dropped complaints and force incidents. This reduction should rebut citizens’ views that police forces are filled with corrupt officers. This perspective will also help the courts because the fewer complaints, the better. In San Diego, “a 2015 report based on preliminary statistics showed that body cameras helped reduce ‘personal body’ force by officers by 46.5%” (Kelsh, 2015, p. 1). Body camera activists agree with the cameras because “they help prosecutors close cases faster, reduce use-of-force incidents and make allegations of misconduct against officers easier to probe. Both sides in a video-taped encounter behave better, they say, leading to fewer complaints and legal settlements” (Bakst, 2015, p.1). To de-escalate heightened tensions, the public deserves access to policing in ways that show hard-working law enforcement officers doing their jobs and protecting the rights of citizens while doing so.

No matter the difficulties in the initial phase, body camera usage should be enforced. The cameras will help with the safety and wellbeing of everyone. Our officers need to realize that the public’s interest in their day-to-day job functioning has nothing to do with trust; it is a precaution that will help them in the long run. Like former New York Chief of Police Adams states: “New technologies like body cameras need to be part of a forward-thinking mindset that encourages cooperation and puts safety first, for the police and the community alike. The era of darkness is over” (Adams, 2015, p. 2). Crime already makes society dim; body cameras will help shed light on the often criticized role that police officers play in keeping their municipalities safe.

References 

Adams, E.L. (2015, Nov. 14). More scrutiny, better policing. New York Times. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1733126032?accountid=36202

Bakst, B., & Foley, R.J. (2015, Feb.). For police body cameras, big costs loom in storing footage. The Louisiana Weekly. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1655857797? accountid=36202

Bloomberg view: Police cameras will create a panopticon. (2015, May 4). The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1678654666?accountid=36202

Bui, L. (2015, Jan. 15). Prince George’s studying cost, privacy and tech issues related to body cameras (posted 2015-01-15 17:27:42). The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://search. proquest.com/docview/1646532599?accountid=36202

Gehrke, R. (2015, July 7). Coming soon to your neighborhood: Police body cameras. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/

1694765738?accountid=36202

Keating, G. (2014, Sep. 3). My word: Piedmont police wearing cameras good for all. Oakland Tribune. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/

1559815435?accountid=36202

Kelsh, C. (2015, Oct. 2). Do body cameras change how police interact with the public? - Journalist's Resource. Retrieved from http://journalistsresource.org /studies/government/criminal-justice/body-cameras-police-interact-with-public

Kingdom, A. (2012, 02). More police trying on wearable cameras. Government Video, 23, 16-20. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/922379212?accountid=36202

Liebelson, D. (2015, 13 Aug.). No video of a police shooting? That’s because many cops still don’t have body cameras. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/police-body-cameras_us_55cbaac7e4b0f1cbf1e740f9

Lopez, G. (2015, July 30). A body camera helped get justice for Samuel DuBose. But there’s debate about the devices. Retrieved from http://www.vox.com/2014/9/17/ 6113045/police-worn-body-cameras-explained

 McFarlin, C. (2015, Jan. 7). Body-worn cameras: Benefits and best practices for police. Retrieved from http://inpublicsafety.com/2015/01/body-worn-cameras -benefits-and-best-practices-for-police/?utm_source=Police1&utm_medium=link&utm_content=

Cameras&utm_campaign=Public Safety - LT - AMU

Meyer, R. (2015, Aug.17). Should everyone get to see body-camera video? Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015 /08/police-worn-body-camera-footage-video-washington-dc-new-policy/401468/

 Phillips, N. (2015, Sep. 23). New body cam policy. Denver Post. Retrieved from http://search. proquest.com/docview/1716257557?accountid=36202

Williams, L. (2014, Aug. 19). Why body cameras alone won’t solve our police abuse Problem. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/08/19/3471722/ why-police-body-cams-wont-prevent-the-next-ferguson/

Willies, E. (2015, May 24). American reality distorted by media coverage and police response. Retrieved from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/5/24/1386889/-American-reality-distorted-by-media-coverage-and-police-response

Wing, N. (2015, Oct. 13). Study shows less violence, fewer complaints when cops wear body cameras. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/police-body -camera-study_561d2ea1e4b028dd7ea53a56

Spotify’s Negative Impact on the Redeveloping Music Industry

By Ryan Saloum

Abstract

This essay explores the correlation between the rise of Spotify and trends in consumer and creative habits within the music industry, with the conclusion that the negative effects of Spotify on the industry outweigh the benefits that it offers. Supporting this conclusion is an analysis of how Spotify’s impact on consumption habits has indirectly changed music production and design. This essay also investigates the oversaturated state of Spotify’s library and the algorithm used to simplify user experience, which unfairly boosts some artists while simultaneously burying others. Spotify’s low artist payout rate is also examined, as well as the effect of insufficient financial return, and its subsequent effects in the future of the industry. This issue’s solution resides in increased external support from fans through concert attendance, merchandise sales, and crowdfunding.

Spotify’s Negative Impact on the Redeveloping Music Industry

Just a little over 20 years ago, purchasing a song required fans to drive to their local record store and buy a physical single. For many this process created valued memories, as going out of the way to buy a physical single or album made for cherished experiences. Ever since Spotify launched in late 2008, it has been reshaping the industry from the ground up.  Millions of consumers abandoned the practice of physical, or even digital, purchases in exchange for the convenience and efficiency of unlimited streaming for a monthly fee. Ten years later, the negative effects that Spotify has on the industry have become more apparent, outweighing the benefits that it offers.

The Good

Over the past few years, Spotify has been in the middle of a heated debate among industry professionals about whether it is helping or hurting the industry. The biggest advantages of Spotify lie in how easy it makes it for independent artists to release music. Since Spotify releases exclusively digital content, artists and labels are spared from the high cost of physical production and distribution in exchange for a fixed percentage of each release’s income. This allows independent artists an affordable way to release their music, using companies such as CDBaby and TuneCore. These services offer straightforward ways for independent artists and labels to release their music on streaming platforms without the infrastructure of their larger counterparts.

Another undeniable benefit of Spotify is its effect on Internet piracy.  Nicknamed “The Lost Decade,” by CNN (2010), music industry revenue fell from over $14 billion in 1999, to just over $6 billion in 2010 (figure 1, below).  Even though the industry has jumped to a digital “pay-per-song” system (e.g. iTunes), Internet piracy is blamed as the true cause for the decline. In 2010, BigChampagne Media Measurement, a company regularly used for tracking revenue and other information, showed that Internet piracy accounted for up to 90% of all digital music downloads.  Since then, according to the UK’s Telegraph (2016), the low cost and ease of Spotify has increased the number of legal music listeners up to 80% in 2016.

The Bad

Even though Spotify has exerted undeniably positive effects on the industry, many industry professionals fear that the state of the industry’s over-saturation will lead it down an unrecoverable path. CNN writes that “despite the great decline in sales, the Internet has exposed consumers to more music than ever before. But that accessibility has been difficult to monetize.” This shows the fear shared by many industry professionals, labels, and artists who struggle to find listeners amid so much competition. John McDermott of Mel Magazine (2016) summarizes the issue by writing, “Where do you begin when the entirety of recorded music history is a few mere keystrokes away?” Coined the “Paradox of Choice” by Barry Schwartz (2004), many artists are now left unable to obtain a serious fan base, while many more are unable to achieve any substantial number of streams at all.  Spotify’s “fix” to this problem is the implementation of “Discover Weekly” playlists generated by the system on a weekly basis to align with the music taste of that particular user.  However, while this is great for users, this also alienates artists who are not deemed “worthwhile” for the system to promote.

 With so much music to consume, the average listener’s attention span has reduced dramatically. As a result, this new development has altered the approach to music production as a whole.  Modern songs are designed to catch the interest of listeners in the first five seconds. After this point, the average listener will move on to another song, only to repeat the process until a song has caught their interest during that brief window.  Gone are long, melodic introductions of the past, for they have been replaced by meaningless earworms specifically curated for a generation with too many options. Hubert Léveillé Gauvin, a published Ph.D in music theory, found that the top 10 hits during the 1980s featured instrumental introductions averaging 20 seconds, while in modern times the average is just five seconds. The phrase “Don’t Bore Us, Get to the Chorus,” originally the name of an album from Roxette (1995), is used to describe this new way of producing music.  According to the Statistic Brain Research Institute (2016), the average attention span in 2015 was 8.25 seconds, down from 12 seconds in 2000. This statistic is not exclusively due to Spotify, but other instant media/streaming services have impacted the industry dramatically.

The Ugly

The biggest issue with the digital streaming release model is the near complete lack of revenue making its way back to the artists.  As a standard, Spotify takes around 20% (figure 2, above) of all revenue paid out to artists and labels. If the artist is signed to a label, the remaining percentage is divided between the label, the artist, songwriters, and taxes. The label usually takes the largest cut, and divides the rest among involved parties, with the artist’s receiving around 6.8%.  This arrangement may not seem too bad on its own, but when taking into account that each play receives roughly $0.00397 per play (figure 3, below) this shows that that most artists receive a paycheck worth less than the paper it is written on.  For example, the song IDGAF by Dua Lipa is the number-one pop song in the world at the time of this writing. With 287,302,102 streams, the payout for this song is around $1,140,589.  Divided between parties, this means that Spotify retains $342,176, the label makes $524,670, and $270,743 (minus taxes) is divided among the remaining parties. This concludes that the artist behind the most popular pop song in the world makes only $79,841.  While this is not a small amount of money, this profit pales in comparison to what Spotify, or what the label makes.  Some question the irony of chart-topping artists who receive more money for their hard work and years of obscurity than the average U.S. salary. Besides these unfair cuts, only a fraction of artists make a hit song; this means that less popular artists count themselves fortunate if they can break over production costs. Even though the label takes much of the artist’s revenue, many artists without labels find themselves receiving a lower payout than their signed counterparts. They are less likely to receive as many plays compared to when they are within a label.

Implications

Over the past 100 years, hopeful people have flocked to Hollywood to pursue their dreams of becoming wealthy and famous, but what happens if wealth is removed from the equation? While Spotify is currently rich with content, industries with little to no return on investment cannot be expected to survive without changing their business model or habits of their consumers.  Labels and distribution companies, like Spotify, undervalue the importance of artists and this is becoming increasingly apparent from outside the industry.  Who would want to apply for a job knowing they will be underpaid, overworked, and under-appreciated?

How to Make a Difference

Historically, labels would pay artists large sums of money upon signing a record deal that was used to pay for production costs, housing for the artist, music videos, and other expenses.  However, more artists are choosing to remain independent than ever before. They are relying entirely on their fans to support them financially.  Due to Spotify’s low payout, simply streaming artists’ music does not generate enough revenue to support them. On the other hand, purchasing merchandise from an artist or attending a concert is an alternative way to support them and ensure that fans’ money reaches them, not Spotify.  Another popular option for many artists is to use GoFundMe, a crowdfunding website where fans can help fund an artist’s career. This allows them to continue creating and entertaining despite the little revenue returning to them.

Spotify is slowly killing the music industry by lowering the incentive to create and saturating the market with too much competition.  While most of Spotify’s impact cannot be directly altered by consumers, taking the time to support artists outside of Spotify, through physical purchases or concerts, allows consumers to make a difference and rebuild the incentive to create.

References

CNNMoney, (2010). Music’s lost decade: Sales cut in half.  Retrieved from money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/.

Digital Music News (2017, Nov. 22). Exclusive report: Spotify artist payments are declining in 2017, data shows. Retrieved from www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/05/16/spotify-audiam-low-rates/.

Dredge, S. (2013, July 29). Spotify vs. musicians: 10 things to read to better understand the debate. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/29/spotify-vs-musicians-streaming-royalties.

Masnick M. (2015, Feb. 5). Yes, major record labels are keeping nearly all the money they get from Spotify, rather than giving it to artists. Retrieved from http://www.techdirt.com/

articles/20150204/07310329906/yes-major-record-labels-are-keeping-nearly-all-money-they-get-spotify-rather-than-giving-it-to-artists.shtml.

McDermott, J. (2016, Mar. 16). How Spotify solved for the ‘paradox of choice’—MEL magazine. Retrieved from melmagazine.com/how-spotify-solved-for-the-paradox-of-choice-28c4a2f0d09f.

Mulligan, M. (2015). Awakening the Music Industry in the Digital Age. MIDiA Research.

Spinditty (2017, Aug. 23). Why do so many musicians hate Spotify? Retrieved from spinditty.com/industry/why-so-many-artists-hate-spotify.

Statistic Brain (2016, Aug. 12). Attention span statistics. Retrieved from  www.statisticbrain.com/attention-span-statistics/.

Titcomb, J. (2016, July 5). Internet piracy falls to record lows amid rise of Spotify and Netflix. Retrieved from www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/07/04/internet-piracy-falls-to-record-lows-amid-rise-of-spotify-and-ne/.

Trichordist. (2018, Jan. 15). 2017 streaming price bible! Spotify per stream rates drop 9%, Apple music gains marketshare of both plays and overall revenue. Retrieved from thetrichordist.com/2018/01/15/2017-streaming-price-bible-spotify-per-stream-rates-drop-9-apple-music-gains-marketshare-of-both-plays-and-overall-revenue/.

Vérité (2018, Mar. 19). Spotify isn’t killing the music industry; It’s a tool for enterprising indie artists. Retrieved from www.forbes.com/sites/bizblog/2018/03/19/spotify-isnt-killing-the-music-industry-its-a-tool-for-enterprising-indie-artists/#369a7e54476b.

Representation of Religion and Power in "King Lear," "Henry V," and "The Merchant of Venice"

By Danika Reynolds

 William Shakespeare wrote a wide variety of plays under the rule of Queen Elizabeth I in Protestant England. Despite writing in an age heavily influenced by religious monarchy, not all of his work condones the actions of characters of power, whether royal or common, pagan or Christian. Shakespeare’s presentation of religion drives his narratives’ central power struggles as well as the plays’ plots and characters. Themes of responsibility and power can initiate diverse discussions among students regarding how religion does or does not have the same power in government, social spheres, and economy. The balance of religion and power is either exemplified or rejected, and the audience can examine how these societal facets affect Shakespeare’s characters. King Lear, Henry V, and The Merchant of Venice provide valuable insight on the balance of power and responsibility, which remains relevant in modern Christian collegiate studies.

King Lear

King Lear showcases religious themes by creating a stark binary of good and evil characters in a political setting where pagan god-worship is prevalent. The lack of institutional religion in King Lear reflects a kingdom with morally evil characters ruling with lack of responsibility and selfish-motivation. The characters that consciously align with good are cast into exile for their actions and endure many hardships, though they demonstrate virtues of forgiveness, redemption, and sacrifice. The tension of this binary becomes the source of the suffering and separation of the families in the story. The tragedy of Lear unfolds from his intention to pass the responsibility of the crown to his children while maintaining his title as king. Lear says publicly before his family, friends, and attendants: “Tell me, my daughters, (since now we will divest us both of rule, interest in territory, cares of state), which of you shall we say doth love us most, that we our largest bounty may extend where nature both with merit challenge?” (King Lear, 1.1.48-53). King Lear already knows which of his daughters loves him most and presents a contest of words and praise in order to flatter himself before his court, giving him an excuse to grant his beloved Cordelia extra lands.

Cordelia immediately recognizes the irresponsibility and intentions of her father’s actions. However, because Cordelia loves Lear most, she does not want to indulge him in petty flattery and fall into the game of manipulation in which she knows she cannot beat her sisters. Regal and Goneril play along with long, competitive, and superficial declarations of affection.  When given her turn, Cordelia simply states she loves him as any daughter should, in her exact words, “according to my bond, no more, no less” (King Lear: 1.1.94).  Lear then banishes Cordelia, severing her family ties because he fails to recognize the love in her words and actions. Lear’s sense of power and hubris fuel his approach of distributing land. His hubris also makes him unable to see the same selfish and manipulative nature in his eldest two daughters, who later shun him like he did Cordelia.

Like Cordelia, the Earl of Gloucester also suffers consequences from a family member’s shrewd plots. His bastard son, Edmund, tricks him to turn against his loyal son Edgar to gain Gloucester’s honor and inheritance for himself. Edgar is forced to flee and go into hiding because of Gloucester’s blindness to see Edmund’s treachery and Edgar’s virtue. Later on, Gloucester is both physically blinded and driven from his home by power-hungry Regan and Goneril. His denial of the sisters’ false charges “becomes a confession of guilt” in the same way Cordelia’s refusal of forced flattery sentenced her to exile (Bruce 129). Despite the distance put between the fathers and children of exile, both Lear and Gloucester reunite with their loyal child, offering glimpses of redemption in the tragedy and loss they face from kin turned against them.

Belief becomes a dividing factor in the morality and responsibility of the characters in King Lear. Shakespeare defines the good and evil characters of King Lear by their alignment with the pagan gods. Shakespeare uses the characters’ reverence or lack of reverence to the pagan gods to “divide the characters into opposed extremes of good and evil” (Hole 219). The exiled characters who ultimately represent good—Lear, Gloucester, Kent, Edgar, and Cordelia—“call frequently upon the gods…and all pray for each other, but no evil character prays or is prayed for” (Hole 220). The virtues of familial love and faith are tied together despite the distinctly non-Christian setting of the play. Familial love and faith are also prevalent in the narrative of Christ with the sacrificial son of the gospel representing “good” on earth.

Henry V

While The Tragedy of King Lear shows faith and power dynamics in a monarchy with a non-Christian worldview, other Shakespearean plays overtly display Christianity. For example, Henry V showcases the divine providence of the English conquering France—intertwining religion and military might. Arguments for whether or not this bond represents a Christian view of responsible power balance are widely debated by scholars. Many consider Henry’s reliance on God to be insincere and selfish, serving as an excuse to redeem his reputation in battle and gain favor with his subjects.

The play opens with two archbishops’ presenting King Henry with the idea to conquer France. To protect the church’s interests, the archbishops seek to prevent the passing of a bill that threatens the church’s wealth. After examining the Salique law, they claim “that there is no bar to make against Your Highness claim to France” (Henry V: 1.2.35-36). King Henry, who seeks to restore honor to his name, accepts the chance to finally claim France, warning the bishops, “God forbid… that you should fashion, wrest, or bow your reading…for God both know how many now in health shall drop their blood in approbation of what your reverence shall incite us to” (Henry V: 1.2.13-14, 18-20). Henry places the responsibility for his choice on the Church’s interpretation of the law and infers all the following successes in his conquest are divine providence from God.

Scholars’ skepticism of King Henry’s intentions stem from the role of monarchy and religion in the play’s era. At the time of Henry V, “kingship reflected a dual belief in the sanctity of the monarch, as well as in the monarch’s obligation to meet the expectations of martial heroism, sanctified piety and wise judgment that comprised the sovereign ideal” (Bezio 31). King Henry knew that feats of glory would win him favor and honor with his subjects, making him accept the somewhat risky venture of invading France. King Henry repeatedly mentions and emphasizes God’s provision over the course of his campaign.

The first example of King Henry’s self-proclaimed divine providence occurs before his army’s departure for France. Several traitors are revealed among his ranks and he decides to expose their deeds in front of his other loyal officers. After the public reveal of their treachery, Henry says, “for this revolt of thine, methinks, is like another fall of man. Arrest them to the answer of the law, and God acquit them of their practices!” (Henry V: 2.2.141-44). Henry’s reference to the fall parallels Adam and Eve’s price of sin, the consequences of sin being death reflected in their sentence of execution for their crimes. Henry continues his journey to France where he dedicates his victories to God.

King Henry uses his charisma to rally his soldiers behind the promise of providence. On the battlefield, Henry continues to lift his victories to God and humble himself in order to boost the morale of his men. This enables his soldiers to charge France’s army of superior size and cause large-scale bloodshed for the sake of a “just” cause. Mebane argues Henry’s power is a “compound of codes of chivalry, traditional Judeo-Christian ‘just war’ doctrine, and pagan heroic tradition” (251-52). These principles appear at the end of the battle when Henry declares, “O God, thy arm was here; and not to us but to thy arm alone. Ascribe we all” (Henry V: 4.8.106-08). This statement justifies the bloody battle, claiming that God handed the victory to the English and that it was predestined through His power. 

The success of King Henry’s campaign makes him an ideal king according to the standards of monarchy in his era. However, King Henry arguably used God’s name and power as justification for an invasion done for glory rather than self-defense. The choices of Henry V receive scrutiny for his manipulation of divine authority, especially when read in a modern society no longer governed by monarchy. Shakespeare’s presentation of Henry’s deeds allows the reader to question the close tie of power and religion in government, especially in policy or war where divine authority can be abused.

The Merchant of Venice

Lastly, The Merchant of Venice presents Christian and Jewish characters with both characters’ speech and actions vividly critiquing the group to which they belong. The majority of the characters of the play are openly Christian, highlighting the tension between Christians and Jews in the play. Shylock, the Jewish moneylender, is portrayed having economic and legal power over Antonio, who borrows money to help his friend Bassanio. Shylock’s harsh bond comes from the bitterness and persecution suffered from Antonio and other Christians. Shylock’s daughter, Jessica, runs away with her father’s money to marry Lorenzo and become a Christian. She doubts the motives behind Lorenzo’s love and still feels out of place, stuck between the Jewish and Christian communities. The dark underlying themes of religious persecution and oppressive power—economic, social, and legal—make some scholars question The Merchant of Venice’s categorization as a comedy, driving the plot and characters’ actions throughout the play.

The tension between the Christian and Jewish characters can be seen throughout the entire play, climaxing at the end with Antonio’s trial and Shylock’s forced conversion. Adelman argues that this tension “traces back to the vexed familial relations between Judaism and Christianity: to Christianity’s simultaneous dependence on its literal and theological lineage in Judaism and its guilty disavowal of that inheritance, to its chronic need both to claim and to repudiate the Jew” (Adelman, 4). Hostility between Shylock and Antonio is sensed from the beginning when Antonio takes a loan. Shylock says to Antonio, “I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him. He hates our sacred nation, and he rails, even there where merchants most do congregate on me, my bargains and my well-won thrift which he calls interest. Cursed be my tribe if I forgive him!” (The Merchant of Venice: 1.3.47-52). Shylock also makes reference to and “sees Jacob as a wholly exemplary, almost a guardian spirit” (Gross 43). Jacob’s actions echo in Shylock’s behavior, since both resort to trickery to fulfill their wishes—whether for birthright or revenge. Shylock is subject to scorn from the other merchants as well, warranting some justification for his bitter actions and making the audience question his villainous role within the play.

Shylock’s daughter Jessica is caught between the cruelty of her Jewish father and the dubious promise of acceptance among the Christians. Jessica runs away with Lorenzo in order to escape her household but suspects Lorenzo only accepts her for her stolen fortune. Even when Jessica is promised to Lorenzo and swears to become a Christian, other characters make pointed remarks about her Jewish heritage. Launcelot says in front of her, “This making Christians will raise the price of hogs: if we grow all to be pork-eaters,” which rudely comments on Jewish dietary traditions and discredits her willingness to convert (The Merchant of Venice: 3.5.23-25). For Jessica, this is especially devastating since her main goal was acceptance outside her household. In this scene, she begins to realize that she may not find acceptance through marriage or Christianity.

Despite Jewish persecution, Shylock feels the one place he truly has power is in the courtroom. In angered expectation of fulfilling his bond of flesh from Antonio, he says, “till thou canst rail the seal from off my bond, thou but offend’st thy lungs to speak so loud: Repair thy wit, good youth, or it will fall to cureless ruin. I stand here for law” (The Merchant of Venice: 4.1.139-142). Even though Antonio offers to repay him more than the owed amount to avoid paying with his life, Shylock refuses because his position of legal power allows him to collect his original reward. Eventually, the law is turned against him and is equally unmerciful—demanding Shylock’s conversion and stripping away his wealth and identity. The cruelty of actions of both the Christians and Jews serve as a reminder that belief does not change the fact we are all fallen humanity—all deserving of God’s grace and mercy.

Shakespeare’s King Lear, Henry V, and The Merchant of Venice all seek to connect responsibility to power and religion through the power struggles present in each narrative. The diverse perspective each play offers create a powerful dynamic and platform for rich discussion about religious power and responsibility in government, social spheres, and economy. Christian students are challenged to examine the responsibility of power they hold as emerging adults in a modern secular society. These thought-provoking connections and reflections make King Lear, Henry V, and The Merchant of Venice suitable selections for Christian collegiate studies.

Works Cited

Adelman, Janet. Blood Relations: Christian and Jew in the Merchant of Venice. University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Bezio, Kristin. “Drama & Demigods: Kingship and Charisma in Shakespeare’s England.” Religions, vol. 4, no. 1, 2013, pp. 30-50. doi:10.3390/rel4010030.

Bruce, Susan. William Shakespeare, King Lear. Columbia University Press, 1998.

Gross, John. Shylock: A Legend and Its Legacy. Simon & Schuster, 1992.

Hole, Sandra. “The Background of Divine Action in King Lear.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, vol. 8, no. 2, 1968, pp. 217-33.

Mebane, John S. “Impious War”: Religion and the Ideology of Warfare in “Henry V.” Studies in Philology, vol. 104, no. 2, Spring 2007, pp. 250-66. EBSCOhost, library.northwestu.edu/scripts/proxy.php?link=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24424013&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Shakespeare, William, and G. Blakemore Evans. “The Life of Henry the Fifth.” The Riverside Shakespeare, edited by J.J.M. Tobin, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997, pp. 979-1015.

Shakespeare, William, and G. Blakemore Evans. “The Merchant of Venice.” The Riverside Shakespeare, edited by J.J.M. Tobin, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997, pp. 288–317.

Shakespeare, William, and G. Blakemore Evans. “The Tragedy of King Lear.” The Riverside Shakespeare, edited by J.J.M. Tobin, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997, pp. 1303–343.

Sixty-Two Words to Reveal a History

By Solomon Taylor

~ To read Langston Hughes’s poem “I, Too”, please visit the following link: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47558/i-too ~

While Langston Hughes’s poem “I, Too” is a brief work, it carries an impressively vast amount of detail and nuance within its eighteen short lines. At first glance, Hughes uses this poem to describe the situation of a black man who seems to work for a white family. The man does whatever is required of him, but the family hides him when other people come to visit. That fact seems to be all there is to know about him, and he dreams of a day when he will join them at the table. Upon closer inspection, however, the structure and mirroring of the poem and Hughes’s choice of words all signify that this man is not speaking just for himself. In fact, he is not speaking for people at all. Instead, this man is speaking for the story of black slavery and subjugation itself and how he is looking forward to the day when this downplayed part of American history, so often overlooked, is going to be brought into the light and revealed for all the world to see.

The structure of the poem is the first place that readers encounter this kind of focus, giving few hints where to focus their attention. The poem is broken up into five stanzas, with the first and last each composed of a single line. Those two lines are designed to stand out, with nothing around them to pull the reader’s attention away. Instead of creating two distinct thoughts, however, Hughes chooses to mirror the opening stanza with the closing. The poem begins with the line, “I, too, sing America” (line 1), but only one word changes when he closes the poem with “I, too, am America” (line 18). These statements are distinct, reflecting the kind of growth that the speaker wants to see. He begins by saying that he can act like America, as he can sing their song, but it implies that he is not fully accepted by what is traditionally considered “America.” In contrast, at the end of the poem, he declares that he truly is America now, whether the dissenters like it or not.

Nonetheless, it is interesting that the man calls himself “America,” not simply “American.” Hughes wants to make that distinction stand out in these lines by isolating them on the page and by using them to bookend the poem, forcing the reader to consider them more carefully to discover why that choice was made and what makes it so important. When the structure of the poem highlights certain details like the opening and closing lines, the author’s choice of words needs great intentionality to make sure that the point is made. When it comes to the distinction between America and American, Hughes makes his choice masterfully. With a single letter, he changes the meaning of the poem entirely. The easiest way to interpret the poem is to see it as a black man’s wanting recognition from a white community, but if Hughes meant for this to be the call of a black man, he would have said that he was American. By choosing to use the term America instead, Hughes implies that this speaker represents America itself. The poem becomes a story about an entire nation, an entire legacy, with a single letter.

At the beginning of the poem, the darker brother is sent away when company comes. Hughes wants his readers to associate the imagery of a black man in servitude with America as a whole. The “darker brother” (line 2) of America’s legacy is sent away when others come to look, and they only ever see its good side. The speaker longs for a day when he will be at the table, when he will be seen, even if the people trying to keep him hidden are against it. By using phrases like “Nobody’ll dare” send him away (line 11) and how they will “be ashamed” to have him there (line 17), the speaker proves that it will not be their choice to let him take a seat. They are trying their best to keep him out of sight, out of mind, but he refuses to be silenced and hidden away. America will be seen for who he truly is.

As this representative character of the darker side of America and its legacy, the speaker is fighting to be known and to be recognized at the table. He wants to be seen “when company comes” (line 10), when the world comes knocking at the gates of history. America has recently been criticized for trying to downplay the enormous impact slavery had on its modern prosperity, and the speaker is starting to see his dream come to pass. In the years when he was rejected, he decided to “laugh, and eat well, and grow strong” (lines 5-7). Now that tomorrow has come, he has been brought to the table in the presence of company. America’s history is being made known to the world, and the people who tried to hide that history do not dare to tell it to “[e]at in the kitchen” (line 13), because company will not stand for it. The world has decided to make known the story of the black community; it cannot be covered back up and hidden away. As the speaker says, “They’ll see how beautiful I am, and be ashamed” (lines 16-17), because they know what they did to him, how they tried to hide him away when company came, and now they know how incredible he is to everyone else. By finally achieving that first interaction, America has been able to reveal the whole story. Moreover, those who could not speak out have been given the voice that they need to advocate for the change that they still need today.

Hughes wrote this poem to express his desire to see black history uncovered in America. It is America’s secret past, its “darker brother” (line 2), as the speaker puts it. Hughes looked forward to the day when it would be brought into the light. He wrote this poem in 1926, almost twenty years before the Civil Rights Movement even started. It was, however, the same year that Negro History Week was announced and black history began to receive attention in schools. Hughes was right on the brink in America’s understanding of its own history, and this poem reflects that very turning point. The speaker is ready to step out of the kitchen to join the table. Therefore, his story is just as important to America’s legacy as any other.

Hughes’s choice of words and imagery create this vision of a black worker in a white home that points the reader toward the greater narrative that he is forming, pointing to the oppression of the people and their right to be heard. The structure of the poem, brief as it is, invites closer attention to every detail. The bookend stanzas sum up the entirety of his message in four words: “I, too, am America” (line 18). I, too, deserve the recognition freely given to everyone else. I, too, have the right to tell my story. I, too, deserve a seat at the table, and I will not let you take that away from me. All of it is implied in one sentence. Moreover, in only sixty-two words, Langston Hughes has written a masterpiece that captures the essence of what it means to be truly known and seen.

Work Cited

Hughes, Langston. “I, Too.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature: 1865 to the Present, edited by Robert S. Levine, 9th ed., Norton, 2017, p. 1038.

Uncovering Biblical Principles in Shakespeare

By Hannah Vaughan

Interwoven in Christian higher education, students and faculty members seek to answer the question “How does my faith interact with the world?” Students are challenged to intersect their faith and work as they follow career paths society deems secular. In addition to the question of work and faith, another query may be presented, “How does faith interact with art?” Throughout history, art has been used to extol and to entertain. Beautiful music compositions and paintings on the walls and ceilings of churches inspire awe across centuries. Art can be a way to draw close to the things of God; through art, we come to understand Who God is in a deeper way. However, music and images are not the only means to experience God in art. The work of playwright William Shakespeare is regarded as canonical to literary art, capturing the attention of audiences both religious and secular since the 1600s. Ian Hunter describes the phenomenon of divine experience through art in Shakespeare’s work: “If you want to get a sense of what God was doing at the Creation…you will better approximate it by thinking of William Shakespeare writing King Lear rather than a scientist such as Albert Einstein at work in his laboratory” (n. pag.). Despite Shakespeare’s lack of explicit connection to faith, his plays reflect the Judeo-Christian tradition more often than one expects. His works do not inherently support faith, but he was nonetheless influenced by the churched culture of his day and biblical themes surface in his writing. Rich with biblical symbolism and imagery, Shakespeare’s King Lear and The Merchant of Venice demonstrate Christian love, sacrifice, justice, and mercy, as well as their opposites by painting the human experience within theater. The actions of Shakespeare’s characters present lessons in these virtues and illustrate their importance, whether by their perpetuation or rejection.

Shakespeare’s King Lear features an old monarch wanting to yield his responsibilities as a ruler to his three daughters, two of whom feel slighted by their youngest sister’s being their father’s favorite. King Lear’s plan to split the kingdom results in his disownment of his youngest daughter Cordelia and severe damage being inflicted on his relationships with Goneril and Regan. One of Shakespeare’s more popular tragedies, this play illustrates a family dynamic that is not only dysfunctional but filled with betrayal and love lost. Audiences watching this play observe Lear as he slowly deteriorates into a state of madness because his power is stripped from him and he realizes he has ostracized the only people he loves. Sean McEvoy’s Shakespeare: The Basics, explains this in the scope of tragedies: “Though fate plays a strong part in these plays, the downfall of the protagonist must be due to some personal error of judgement (sic)” (184). The lapse in judgment is on the part of King Lear, whose decisions ultimately led to the death of many characters including himself. Unable to predict the consequences of his actions, King Lear ruins his kingdom until order is restored. Lear’s daughter Cordelia serves as a leading example of undeserved forgiveness and love toward others. After being rejected and banished by her father, Cordelia’s devotion to him remains, and she never ceases her attempts to save him from himself and others. McCoy’s analysis of the relationships in this play indicate that “Cordelia understands her father’s tragic errors and their fatal consequences, but she remains willing to die for him anyway[; h]er awareness ennobles her devotion” (53). Even at the expense of her own life, Cordelia’s primary goal in the play is to protect her father. The tragedy of King Lear is far reaching; many characters meet their end during the course of the play. However, it is through their deaths that the resolution of the play comes to fruition. Derek Cohen asserts that the many scapegoats of the play are necessary to usher in new life and restoration. Even though life ends, new hope comes about from it (387). Tragedy flows through the lines of this play, but amidst the great tragedies, a promise remains for something better and the power of devotion births hope for characters and audience members alike.

This play demonstrates biblical principles in its presentation of forgiveness and love after deep betrayal. King Lear’s actions are reminiscent of Christians and their behaviors, which separate from the Heavenly Father. The story of the prodigal son in Luke 15 is reflected in elements of King Lear, but not through a direct parallel. The biblical narrative tells of a son who requested his inheritance and squandered it, reaching the lowest point in his life before returning to his father’s house. Expecting scorn from his father for his irresponsible actions, the son plans to ask for a job as a servant but is welcomed warmly by his father. Traditionally reflecting the love of a father toward his child, King Lear represents love from a child to her father. Lear’s actions cast him as the prodigal son; before the conclusion of the first act, he has already burned bridges with each of his three daughters. His search for power without responsibility throughout the middle of the play reflects the prodigal son and his search for fulfillment in the world. However, much like the prodigal son, King Lear reaches a point of despair and realizes he has nothing to love. However, Lear also understands the severity of his actions toward Cordelia. Analysis of this interaction expounds the point further:

Only when he truly sees himself does he see Cordelia’s love and rise from the void. As the play approaches its final act he submits himself to her punishment, seeing both his “cause” for offense and her right to punish him, even offering his very life: “If you have poison for me, I will drink it.” She finds no fault and replies, “No cause, no cause.” She simply forgives. Her love is divine. It neither demands nor expects payment. (Jermann).

Akin to the unconditional love demonstrated by the father in Luke 15, Cordelia forgives her own father without hesitation. Despite her father’s wrongdoings against her, Cordelia’s love is greater and extends past Lear’s mistakes. 

Biblical ideals are not solely demonstrated in Shakespeare’s tragedies, though. One of Shakespeare’s funniest and darkest plays, The Merchant of Venice, while challenging the Judeo-Christian tradition with its plot and characters, demonstrates the power of mercy and love. Named for Antonio, The Merchant of Venice follows the fortunes and misfortunes of Antonio and his colleagues through a loan, a vow, a chance at love, and an act of revenge. Bassanio’s endeavor to woo and marry the fair Portia leads to his dear friend Antonio’s seeming demise after Antonio borrows money from a Jewish money lender with a vendetta. Shylock, the Jewish moneylender, is embittered by Antonio because of his Christian faith and because of Antonio’s previous slander of Shylock; his revenge cannot be realized without an attempt, albeit unsuccessful, on Antonio’s life.  While various characters try to convince Shylock to be merciful, his demand for a pound of Antonio’s flesh is resolute, “Proceed to judgement. By my soul I swear there is no power in the tongue of man to alter me: I stay here on my bond” (Merchant of Venice, IV.i.240-242). A section of the court law that is uncovered by Bassanio’s wife Portia ultimately saves Antonio from Shylock’s hand; the law states an attempt on another citizen’s life is punishable by death. Hostile interactions between characters with differing religious backgrounds question the Judeo-Christian tradition in many ways, but Shakespeare’s move to write the character of Portia alludes to many biblical principles such as justice and mercy regardless of circumstances.

Portia is a wealthy and intelligent woman whose character reveals biblical philosophies of justice and mercy throughout the course of the play. These are evident in her actions toward saving Antonio from the angered Shylock. During the court proceedings, Portia brings forth an eloquent address in her attempt to convince Shylock away from revenge:

The quality of mercy is not strain’d, it droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: it blesseth him that gives and him that takes. ‘Tis mightiest in the mightiest, it becomes the throned monarch better than his crown. (MV, IV.i.185-189).

Shylock swears to the law and uses it as his driving argument for why he should collect his bond, but Portia implores him to have mercy, as it brings greater reward for the giver and receiver. Douglas Anderson suggests the scene, “sustain[s] the view that Portia’s New Testament Morality supersedes Shylock’s Old Testament legalism (122). Under the new covenant, Christians are given mercy when they should receive a punishment akin to Antonio’s. Shylock’s intent is to carry the law through to completion no matter the context, while Portia’s aim is to show mercy for Antonio, despite his inability to pay his debt. This position from Portia demonstrates the importance of forgiveness even when it is not earned. 

Similar to Cordelia’s sacrifice in King Lear, both Antonio and Portia exhibit love and willingness to sacrifice for their loved ones. While unintentional, Bassanio’s decisions largely result in the predicament Antonio faces, but Antonio is willing to sacrifice himself for the sake of his friend’s happiness. His initial decision to help Bassanio finance his pursuit of Portia can reflect Christ assuming the debts of others through the claim of divine justice, according to Barbara Lewalski (334). When Antonio’s alacrity is put to the test under the premise of Shylock collecting his bond with Antonio’s flesh, the merchant doesn’t waver. Even in the face of a gruesome death, Antonio’s loyalty to his friend remains. It is easy to claim we would do the same for a friend or relative in need; however, Antonio’s situation brings startling reality to the notion, “take a bullet for your friend.” Nevertheless, it is impossible to affirm our intentions unless the circumstances occur. Hesitation and retraction of commitment would likely result from such a scenario in real life. However, Christ committed to and endured the very same position; the difference is Christ went through with it. There was no amount of wealth or cunning to spare him from death on the cross. Furthermore, Christ died for the sins of humanity; not everyone he was sacrificed for will choose to follow him, but he gave himself willingly anyway. Antonio’s devotion to Bassanio pales in comparison but is the closest demonstration of Christ’s sacrifice.

Likewise, Portia’s love is illustrated in her willingness to give up a portion of her wealth in order for Bassanio to save Antonio from death. Although her wealth is now Bassanio’s property as well, he hesitates to request her financial assistance in saving Antonio. Their marriage has yet to be finalized, and it would appear rude to ask for such a large sum of money. Nevertheless, Portia senses how much Antonio means to her new husband and declares, “Since you are dear bought, I will love you dear” (MV, III.iii.313). John Russell Brown points out that this speaks to Portia’s desire to “give joyfully in love” (68). It is clear Bassanio wants to help his friend, but without the means to do so, he is powerless. Portia’s provision of funds enables her husband to return the devotion Antonio poured out on him; her love serves as her motivation.

The biblical principles of love, sacrifice, justice, and mercy are found throughout the scenes of each of these plays; some examples are more obvious than others, but each one gives further insight to God’s nature and interaction with His creation. The darkness and despair in each of these plays serve as imitations of the evil in the world because of the problem of sin. However, amidst the darkness, there are consistently characters who embody love, sacrifice, mercy, and justice, to right the wrongs committed. Audiences viewing or reading these productions engage with situations that challenge their understanding of good and evil and what will prevail when the day is complete. These productions allow audiences to consider the realities of a fallen world and demonstrate the power of goodness within it. In the discourse of faith’s interacting with art, Shakespeare’s plays provide an avenue for faith to emerge within literary art.

Works Cited

Anderson, Douglas. “The Old Testament Presence in the Merchant of Venice.” ELH, vol. 52, no. 1, 1985, pp. 119–119. doi:10.2307/2872830.

Brown, John Russell. Shakespeare and His Comedies. Routledge, 2004.

Cohen, Derek. “The Malignant Scapegoats of King Lear.” SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900, vol. 49, no. 2, 2009, pp. 371-89. doi: 10.1353/sel.0.0059

Hunter, Ian. “Lear, Cordelia & the Cross.” Catholic Education Resource Center, Aug. 2012, www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/art/lear-cordelia-amp-the-cross.html.

Jermann, Pete. “Seeing Love: A Reflection on King Lear.” Crisis Magazine, 13 Jan. 2015, www.crisismagazine.com/2015/seeing-love-reflection-king-lear.

Lewalski, Barbara K. “Biblical Allusion and Allegory in ‘the Merchant of Venice.’” Shakespeare Quarterly, vol. 13, no. 3, 1962, pp. 327-43. doi:10.2307/2866826. 

McCoy, Richard. “Look upon me, Sir: Relationships in King Lear.” Representations, no. 81, 2003, pp. 46-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/rep.2003.81.1.46

McEvoy, Sean. Shakespeare: The Basics. Routledge, 2000. 

Shakespeare, William. The Wadsworth Shakespeare. Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 1997.

From Protest to Solution: A New Anthem for NFL Players

By Evan Manley Rhoades

Since our country’s founding, peaceful protests have been protected by the Constitution through the First Amendment. We all have the right to protest peacefully on any subject we choose. Many people utilize this right in a multitude of ways, some being more effective than others. Take, for example, the NFL protests, which began when Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem in a televised game on August 26, 2016, an act that was simultaneously widely supported and widely criticized on a national level. Shortly after Kaepernick’s actions, players from various teams began to emulate him in protest of racial inequality. While these NFL protests acknowledge the continuance of racial problems in America, they also tend to result in anger and misunderstanding. They may draw attention to the racial issues in our country, but it is unclear whether they help to solve them. Thus, we must ask ourselves whether these protests are effective in combating the racial issues in our country today. In reality, the NFL protests do succeed in spreading awareness; however, they largely fail in fixing the issues at hand and, therefore, must be improved to have the desired impact that NFL players claim to strive for: the elimination of racial disparities in social, legislative, and economic systems in America.

The Undeniable Impact

Kaepernick’s protests have grown both in size and impact on our national discussion since their commencement in August 2016, spreading awareness of racial inequality and starting a new conversation on the topic of race in America. According to Kaepernick himself, “I’m going to continue to stand with the people that are being oppressed. To me, this is something that has to change” (Wagner-McGough, 2016, para. 3). Kaepernick’s goal was to start a dialogue about racial issues, and it appears to have worked. According to Pew, an esteemed political and socioeconomic research center, the number of voters who found treatment of racial and ethnic minorities to be an important issue in need of address, were negligibly low in the 2012 election, but 63% of voters said the problem was “very important” to them by 2016 (Clark, 2012; Fingerhut, 2016, p. 1). Such a huge leap could be reasonably attributed to the NFL protests’ gaining national attention three short months before the presidential election. Thus, it is clear that these protests have raised awareness, but, have they helped to fix the problem? Some would argue that raising awareness is progress, while others claim that the protests have made racial divisions even worse. The answer, as is often the case, is a combination of both views.

The Key Difference Between Awareness and Solutions

While shedding light on a problem is necessary for action to take place, America needs a solution rather than mere awareness of the problem. Albert Einstein once commented, “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions” (qtd. in Deutsch, 2013, p. 6). Given this mindset, it could be possible that these protests have done a great service by bringing this problem into the light and forcing America to begin thinking of a solution. However, a focus on the issue rather than the solution is detrimental. There comes a time when the resources and means for a solution must be implemented to combat the now identified problem. As Dorothea Brande (a famous writer and editor from New York) once explained, “A problem clearly stated is a problem half solved” (qtd. in O’Grady, 2015, p. 61). The problem-identifying stage must give way to its natural evolution, the problem-solving stage. In layman’s terms, it is now time to “put our money where our mouths are.” We must offer potential solutions and implement them in order to move forward and avoid the all too familiar drop off of interest that inevitably occurs when a movement fails to effect change. Some use this idea to justify an unflattering view of Colin Kaepernick. They claim that he irresponsibly started a protest movement rather than attempting to solve the problem he so adamantly highlights. However, those who posit such ideas would be ignorant of Kaepernick’s recent actions. Kaepernick pledged one million dollars to black communities in need as of September 2016 (Wagner-McGough, 2016, para. 1). This move toward a solution is certainly commendable. However, despite this and other actions by NFL players to begin solving the racial issues our country faces, the message sent through their protests is often being changed, criticized, and even identified as part of the problem. It may come as a surprise, but the players are not blameless in this miscommunication. The lack of clarity in their message is problematic, making it easy to distort and/or misinterpret their protests.

Powerful Protests Prompt Powerful Divisions

Though the NFL protests have helped raise awareness about racial divides in America, they have also exacerbated those divides, and indeed encouraged others. The message of racial inequality is present, but many see NFL players’ sitting or taking a knee during the pledge as disrespectful. Their acts seem to diminish not only the value of the flag and the country, but also the soldiers who have died and continue to die to protect them, their families, and the freedoms that they enjoy. Given this view, it is understandable why these protests would be called hypocritical, considering these players are only able to protest because they live in a country that grants freedom of speech thanks to the sacrifices of many before them. The problem is not that the NFL protesters fail to explain themselves over social media or to the public, but that a knee-jerk reaction would often attribute sitting for the pledge of allegiance to be a form of disrespect or protest against America itself. Thus, the message is confused and misinterpreted to the point that it actually encourages hostility and anger rather than encouraging a discussion of racial issues. The problem here comes from perspective, of which there are many within our country. Some look at the actions of NFL players as divisive, ungrateful, and even hateful toward the country that is giving them millions of dollars per year to play sports. These problems would be much less prevalent if Kaepernick had not chosen the national anthem as a podium for his message. By doing so, he shifted the focus of the protests from racism in America to America itself, which has been the cause of a substantial backlash. Despite these issues, the messages are still legitimate in many respects, and there is certainly a way to use them effectively while keeping said messages clear. In fact, NFL players are in a unique position to help solve the problems of racial disparity in America. However, they must be aware of this position that they hold in order to have a positive impact rather than a negative one, much like Olympic sprinters John Carlos and Tommie Smith in the 1968 Olympics.

Understanding and Healing the Divide

Smith and Carlos reveal the opportunities for both division and progress in these kinds of situations, serving as an example of the potential pitfalls inherent in such protests. In 1968, the two sprinters decided to stage a protest against racial inequality in America. Although the racial divides and problems were much more common and problematic during this time, the similarities between these protests and those in the NFL are quite evident. The two African-American men placed first and third in the Men’s 200 meter, when they each “mounted the medal stand with an ‘Olympic Project for Human Rights’ button pinned to [their] track jacket[s], black socks displayed prominently by shoeless feet and rolled pant legs, and a single black glove [each]” (Sherman, Dijk, Alinder, & Aneesh, 2013, pp. 219-220). Scholars have analyzed this moment in history in the book The Long 1968. Here they quote William C. Roden’s commentary explaining the diverse reactions to the protest: “For many of us, their silent demonstration—one part human rights, one part black power—is an enduring symbol of resistance and righteous indignation. For others, the demonstration was disrespectful and even treasonous” (qtd. in Sherman et al., 2013, pp. 219-220). These two men etched their place in sports history with their defiance.

The protests in the NFL, despite taking place nearly four decades later, are similar in their ability to bring together and divide the country. They, too, have the possibility of being taken as disrespectful, stirring up flames of derision and outrage along the lines of perception and interpretation. However, they also have the possibility of opening a dialogue, highlighting issues, and helping to fix them. The challenge is keeping the message clear. Although kneeling during the national anthem may be a big stage for a protest, that does not mean it is the most effective or appropriate. Many NFL athletes have the media's attention at their fingertips and could thus find a medium of protest that more clearly represents that which they decry. NFL players are not protesting the flag, the anthem, or the founding concepts of the country, but rather the current racial divide. This concept would be much better addressed outside of the context generated by the national anthem lest the message be lost in translation.

Thanks to our ability to engage instantly with millions of people in today’s society, a solution is close at hand. With modern media, news networks could set up a live stream discussion pertaining to racial disparity after the games, fostered, funded, and supported by the football players themselves. These streams could incorporate fundraising by providing links to donate to organizations that would support poor African-American communities or contribute to the changing of laws that are discriminatory based on race. If this were implemented correctly, it would likely garner support from many different groups and individuals throughout the country. Some might say that providing an opportunity to get involved is not a solution, but we cannot force each other to do anything. A solution is only possible through the will to change, and because that has already been fostered by these protests, however divisive they may have been, an opportunity to take action is exactly what Americans need. After all, it is not the NFL players themselves who will make the difference in our nation, but the people on the ground working to further the solution. If a live stream and donation center is not the ideal way to get involved, then the NFL players could start a commercial campaign that would air during their games, outlining certain racial injustices and encouraging listeners to write letters to their local government, requesting specific reforms to fix those issues. Even hosting a question and answer session or debate on said issues after the game would facilitate progress. At the end of the day, the idea is helping others get involved, and this can be done without continuing the extreme controversy that these protests have created.

Because African-American NFL players make up a large percentage of all players in the NFL, they are uniquely situated to use their vast incomes and influence to make a difference in their communities and in this country, just as Colin Kaepernick has done by donating a million dollars to African American communities in need. Because the matter of racial division in America has now been magnified, it is time to takes steps to heal the divide. If more NFL players took Kaepernick’s lead by donating and supporting the cause, rather than protesting, both African American communities and the country at large could greatly benefit. In this way, there would be no doubt as to the message being sent; equality must be ensured for all races, whether that be social, economic, or legal.

This goal, however, does not start with the national anthem, football players, or even Caucasians or African Americans. The move toward achieving this goal starts with the individual. Thus, viewers of the NFL must join in a civil national discussion and allow level heads to prevail, both on and off the field. The message means nothing if it comes only from the lips of NFL players, and it cannot become a reality without the support from fans and proponents alike. Each must be willing to give time and money towards solving these racial issues. This is our country, and to act like it, we must begin by treating each other with respect and building this nation up, rather than becoming divisive and tearing each other down. In this way, we go from group arguments to individual discussions, which is in itself a microcosm of the goals espoused by NFL players and fans alike: equal opportunity and treatment for all.

References

Boudreaux, D. (2017). Further thoughts on NFL players’ protests. Cafe Hayek: Where Orders Emerge (2017-9-25t13:08:12.000z). Retrieved from https://nu.on.worldcat.org/

search?sortKey=BEST_MATCH&databaseList=638&queryString=protests+in+the+nfl&changedFacet=scope&scope=&scope=wz:5455&format=all&database=all&author=all&year=all&yearFrom=&yearTo=&language=all#/oclc/7142184514

Clark, M. P. (2012, April 17). Section 2: Issues of the 2012 campaign. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2012/4/17/section-2-issues-of-the-2012-campaign/

Deutsch, C. (2013). The seeking solutions approach: Solving challenging business problems with local open innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(3), 6.

Fingerhut, H. (2016, July 7). Top voting issues in 2016 election. Retrieved November 9, 2017, from http://www.people-press.org/2016/7/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/

Fox Sports. (2017, Nov. 2). Midway through NFL season, football ratings are down. Retrieved from https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/midway-through-nfl-season-football-ratings-are-down-110217-2

O’Grady, E.T. (2015). The policy process. Policy & Politics in Nursing and Health Care-E-Book, 61.6o9

Sherman, J., van Dijk, R., Alinder, J., & Aneesh, A. (Eds.). (2013). Long 1968: Revisions and New Perspectives. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.nu.idm.oclc.org/lib/northwestu/detail.action?docID=1211188#

Wagner-McGough, S. (2016, Sept. 2). Colin Kaepernick to donate $1 million to charities that aid communities in need. Retrieved from https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/colin-kaepernick-says-hell-donate-1-million-to-charities-that-help-communities-in-need/

Sex Goes to Market: Economically Repressed Sexuality in Charles Dickens’s "Hard Times"

By John O’Hagan

~ This essay—which O’Hagan wrote for ENGL 4913: Senior Thesis—deals with mature themes that are raised by the psychoanalytical theories proposed by Sigmund Freud. As a result, viewing discretion is advised for potential readers. ~

Since its publication, Charles Dickens’s story of a young, broken woman confined to a world of facts and figures, only to be redeemed from her brokenness, has confused its readers. The confusion comes from the ambiguity of the novel’s genre, which has resulted in lengthy debates ranging from the alternate uses of the word fancy, as discussed by Nele Pollatschek, to the paradoxical support of and opposition to a utilitarian outlook on life found within the novel. In the debate over the categorization of Hard Times, the majority of scholars place the novel in the genre of social-problems. The placement of Hard Times as a social-problems novel has heavily subjected it to the Marxist lens. Jessi Snider uses such a lens when he argues that Sissy Jupe is not the champion of the lower classes as is widely believed. This view of Hard Times has reached beyond the field of literary criticism and has become entrenched in popular opinion and politics, as can be seen when Theodore Dalrymple, while writing for The American Conservative, stated, “Political economy is one of [Hard Times’s] most important themes.” Though social-problems is the most popular genre placement, some critics resist such placement. For example, Elizabeth Starr argues that the difficulty in labeling is a result of Dickens’s writing Hard Times as an experimentation to view the “anxieties surrounding the uses of literature” (319) with the character of Louisa as a filter.

The favoring of the Marxist lens has resulted in a gap in how this book has been analyzed. Like much of Dickens’s work, scholars have not subjected Hard Times to the lens of psychoanalysis. Nor has it been scrutinized regarding its themes of sexuality, as these are “still underrepresented topics… in the works of Charles Dickens” (Furneaux and Schwan 1). Although scholars have largely neglected the topics of sexuality, their attention has increased in recent years concerning these issues, while the two most popular theories used by scholars are Gender theory and Queer theory (Waters xii). With the increased attention concerning these topics, some scholars have chosen to look at the work of Dickens through a psychoanalytic lens. Among those scholars is William A. Cohen, who uses a psychoanalytic lens when he examines the sexual undertones in Dickens’s work as well as how the author portrays sexual interactions and desires, which are present in the majority of his work. Cohen also assesses possible allusions to masturbation in Great Expectations and the parallel stigmatization of both masturbation and the novel form in the Victorian period (“Manual” 53). McKnight takes up this torch as she explores Dickens’s prolific use of sexual slang. Critics are not mistaken in using a Marxist lens in the reading of Hard Times, yet the text would be most effectively examined if read in conjunction with a psychoanalytical reading. This additional perspective of the text will reveal that the characters of Hard Times find themselves psychologically repressed through the political and economic conditions found in the novel.

Freudian psychoanalysis has long recognized the natural connection between psychology and literature. Freud himself, in Creative Writers and Daydreaming, argues that authors mask their illicit desires within their work. The core of the psychoanalytic theory of criticism is the belief that there are instances of repressed desires—sexual, violent, and others—that are present in novels, in order to be fulfilled in a socially acceptable manner, and that “we never give anything up; we only exchange one thing for another” (Freud 313). The later theorist, Jacques Lacan, adds to psychoanalytic criticism with his theory of the mirror stage and the symbolic order. He also developed the theory that desires form after a person realizes s/he is an individual and separate from the one who nurtures him/her. In this theory, awakened desires are not only a response to the realization that one is an individual, but a response to the realization that, as an individual, there are things one lacks—specifically, a realization that one lacks coherence or wholeness. Thus, one’s desires are the manifestation of the need for coherence.

In what follows, I combine the Marxist and the psychoanalytical theories to argue that the economic and political conditions, found within the novel, created the extreme psychological repression found so prevalently in Dickens’s characters. This psychological repression is revealed in the form of illicit desires, delusions of grandeur bolstered by deceit, and a manic desire for control for the characters of Louisa, Gradgrind, and those around them, with Harthouse’s representing the unconscious Id and Sissy’s representing the Ego. This repression stems from the Industrial Age’s inherent demand of long work hours that left little time for recreation or the fulfillment of desires and the prioritization of work over pleasure. In the novel, this prioritization is seen in the tension between the contrasting worlds of Fact and Fancy. Those from the world of Fact disregard and disdain pleasure. It is the view that “what you [cannot] state in figures, or show to be purchasable in the cheapest market and saleable in the dearest, was not, and never should be, world without end, Amen” (Dickens 28). Those from the world of Fancy, on the other hand, are immersed in pleasure and imagination, while ultimately seeing oneself as an autonomous being outside of one’s economic conditions. This economically induced tension between Fact and Fancy is instrumental in precipitating the psychological repression found in Hard Times.

Gradgrind, Louisa’s father, is the first character to demonstrate psychological repression. He represses movements—both emotionally and sexually. Dickens describes Gradgrind as square and lacking movement with a “hard voice,” “square forehead,” and “square forefinger” (9). His physicality, as well as his clothing, lacks movement. Gradgrind has a “square coat” with “square shoulders” and pants with “square legs” (9). All of the descriptions about him as well as his movements are stiff and rigid. The description of Gradgrind’s desires provides further evidence of his repressing his emotional and sexual movement. He desires always to be “ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature” (10). This mentality extends toward sex as well. He views sex not as a desire or emotion, but rather a simple fact of life—on par with a business transaction. He views Louisa’s marriage with Bounderby from this point of view. The way Gradgrind perceives sex and human nature stems from his manic desire for control. This desire for control stems from the utilitarian outlook that characterizes the Industrial Age. Gradgrind wants to control his desires, so he can continue to live in the world of Facts, in which he is accustomed and comfortable.

This need to control his desires is the very thing that causes Gradgrind ultimately to lose control. Dickens describes Gradgrind as he stands in front of his students: “[H]e eagerly sparkled at them… [and] he seemed a kind of cannon loaded to the muzzle with facts, and prepared to blow… at one discharge” (10). Evidence for his having lost control of his desire for control is found in the description of how “he eagerly sparkled.” Gradgrind finds pleasure in the potential “discharge” of facts and is waiting expectantly for it. More evidence can be found in the statement, “prepared to blow.” His discipline and self-control are all but gone and he can no longer contain himself as he asserts, “Now what I want is, Facts” and, “In this life, we want nothing but Facts, sir; nothing but Facts” (Dickens 9). Gradgrind extends this outlook to his own children, saying, “This is the principle on which I bring up my own children” (Dickens 9). Louisa herself first encounters repression through Gradgrind’s repression of his own movement and warped perspective of sex.

Through her marriage to Bounderby, Louisa further experiences this psychological phenomenon when she encounters Bounderby’s repression of his mother, Mrs. Pegler. Mrs. Pegler says that she has had to live in hiding away from her son (Dickens 252), due to Bounderby fabricating an elaborate fantasy of his entire origin, claiming to have been abandoned by his parents and having risen to his current position by his own ability—the ideal “self-made man.” Any desire Bounderby has to be with his mother is repressed to maintain his façade of being a self-made man. He therefore pays her a pension of 30 pounds per year insisting that she stay out of his life. Merely having her present would destroy his fantasy as a self-made man, and the façade would fall apart. The idea of the self-made man is paramount to the utilitarian outlook of the Industrial Age. Bounderby views failure to attain the status of being a self-made man as a scandal. Mrs. Pegler admits that she should keep her distance because she has “no doubts” that she would do “a many unbefitting things” if she were around him (Dickens 253). These “unbefitting things” carry a threat—a threat of humiliation or scandal. The threat of scandal forces Bounderby to repress her, while also maintaining a connection with her through the pension he pays her. Bounderby is only able to continue paying his mother off due to the financial success he enjoys because of the very fantasy he is paying her to be able to maintain. Without these specific economic conditions, Mrs. Pegler would not be repressed. It is into this densely woven delusion of grandeur and deception that Louisa arrives through her marriage to Bounderby.

Bounderby’s fantasy of being a self-made man represses Louisa, while at the same time making it possible for her repressed desires to make their appearance in the form of the character Harthouse. Dickens writes, “She [Louisa] was… so ashamed of her husband’s braggart humility—from which she shrunk as if every example of it were a cut or a blow” (127). The word “shrunk” carries with it the ideas of restriction or repression—in this case, a repression of sexual desire. This outcome can be inferred from her husband’s bragging feeling like “a cut or a blow” to her (Dickens 127). This is not the first time that Louisa has “shrunk” from or been sexually repressed by Bounderby. At the age of sixteen, an age where Louisa would have been becoming sexually aware, Bounderby would kiss her cheek and say, “Always my pet; an’t you, Louisa.” (Dickens 27). She would then rub her cheek raw in an attempt to remove all traces of his kiss (27). The imagery of cuts, blows, and the act of rubbing her cheek raw connects violence and sex. This connection has appeared in Dickens before, as Curt Hargot argues that “repressed sexual desire underlies the violence” of Great Expectations (248). Since the time she was young, Louisa has associated sex with violence. This association helps to facilitate her repression and repulsion by Bounderby, her now husband, which leads to further frustration and repression of her sexual desires.

Bounderby represses not only Louisa and Mrs. Pegler but his housekeeper, Mrs. Sparsit, through economic means as well. Mrs. Sparsit is part of the old aristocracy that is dying out in the Industrial Age, though “here she was now… making Mr. Bounderby’s tea as he took his breakfast” (Dickens 47). The Industrial Age made the ascension of the middle-class far easier than it had been in the past, allowing the likes of Bounderby to overtake the aristocracy. Bounderby takes great pleasure in having surpassed Mrs. Sparsit, to the point where “he could not have made a greater flourish with her than he habitually did” (Dickens 47). Bounderby boasts about having Mrs. Sparsit in his service as a way to strengthen further his façade of being a self-made man. Bounderby’s lording of his power over Mrs. Sparsit creates a duality in her. Dickens writes, “Mrs. Sparsit was a pattern of consistency; continuing to take such pity on Mr. Bounderby to his face, as is rarely taken on man, and to call his portrait a Noodle to its face, with the greatest acrimony and contempt” (195). Here Freud’s theory of the aesthetic, working as a surrogate for illicit desires, can be seen when Mrs. Sparsit allows her contempt for Bounderby to manifest toward his portrait. She keeps that contempt hidden in the dark, away from society. She represses it in public, but still acts on it in private by projecting her contempt onto a portrait—an aesthetic work much like the novel. Through this duality, Mrs. Sparsit allows herself the pleasure of indulging her own fantasies through the use of the aesthetic form. This duality is caused by her love for Bounderby and jealousy of Louisa as Bounderby’s wife.

Mrs. Sparsit, out of both love and jealousy, waits in anticipation for Louisa to fall from grace, to give into lust and commit adultery with Harthouse. Dickens says, “She erected in her mind a mighty Staircase, with a dark pit of shame and ruin at the bottom; and down those stairs, from day to day and hour to hour, she saw Louisa coming. It became the business of Mrs. Sparsit’s life” (195). The pleasure she feels in fantasizing about Louisa’s fall removes her even further from Bounderby and the world of Facts. One is not supposed to wonder or to have fantasies in that world, yet she is reveling in her desires and even delving into the unconscious. Mrs. Sparsit’s “staircase” leads into the unconscious—a “dark pit of shame and ruin.” Louisa has illicit desires that are shameful. Louisa is going downward toward the unconscious, but Mrs. Sparsit is already there. She is in love with Bounderby and wants to be his wife. Bounderby, however, is already married, thus she is having adulterous thoughts—something that would be looked down upon in the Victorian era. Dickens describes how Mrs. Sparsit would “look up at her staircase… to watch Louisa coming down” (Dickens 195-96). Mrs. Sparsit must “look up,” which implies that she is already at the bottom in the “dark pit of shame and ruin” that represents the unconscious. She has already fallen. Her duality extends beyond simple emotion and into a violation of her social position and the expectations therein. As the housekeeper, Mrs. Sparsit is the Angel of the House, revered in Victorian society for their upright purity. Simultaneously, though, her adulterous thoughts make her the Fallen Woman as well. Both sides of this duality try to repress the other. Mrs. Sparsit exists in a state of perpetual repression by the economic conditions of the Industrial Age, Bounderby’s fantasy, and the moral code of the Victorian period—as she waits for Louisa to fall.

In the latter part of the novel, Louisa does literally collapse in front of her father, who first instigated the repression of her desires. Louisa tells her father that he kept her garden from blooming and turned it into a wilderness (Dickens 208). What she means is that he never allowed her to explore her imagination and desires—or in other words, he never permitted her to grow sexually healthy. This association can be inferred from her use of the words “garden” and “bloomed.” McKnight points out that the term rosebud, in the Victorian age, was “a longstanding term and image for female genitalia” (55). Therefore, it would not be wrong to assume that there is a connection between a “garden” and sexuality. Not only does Louisa blame her father for turning her “garden” into a “wilderness,” but she also says that he “doomed” her and “hardened” her (Dickens 208-09). This idea comes from her not understanding nor having a healthy sexuality. Louisa focuses her unhealthy sexual drives on Harthouse, who acts as a surrogate for her sexual drives toward Tom.

Louisa’s illicit desires toward Tom appear after the young Louisa explores the circus. By exploring the circus—a world outside of the one Gradgrind controls—she enters Lacan’s mirror stage of development. In Lacanian theory, the mirror stage is the moment when a child learns that s/he is a separate being from the mother—the one who nurtures him/her. This stage is also when the child learns that s/he is an individual with individuated desires. Gradgrind’s disapproving chastisement of Louisa and Tom for exploring the circus becomes Louisa’s mirror stage. Dickens writes, “There was an air of jaded sullenness in them both, particularly the girl: yet, struggling through the dissatisfaction of her face, there was a light… a fire with nothing to burn, a starved imagination” (19). Louisa’s “starved imagination” causes her to realize she has desires outside the world of Facts that Gradgrind designed for her. Profound lack, which is the motivation for one’s desires Lacanian theory, can be easily observed in the character of Louisa. Some of the words used to describe her (e.g. “dissatisfaction,” “nothing,” and “starved”) are all synonymous with lack. Her desires are driven by the need to satisfy her deep deficiencies.

Louisa’s mirror stage awakens her to sexual desires—her sexual desires being the “fire with nothing to burn” (Dickens 19). This motif of fire’s symbolizing sexual desire is seen again when Louisa first experiences desire for Tom a few days after an incident at the circus. The scene occurs in their classroom at home. The classroom is, as Daniel Deneau argues, symbolic of an “educational system which is capable of subverting normal human relationship” (177). The classroom is both where Tom and Louisa are inundated with extreme utilitarianism and where emotional intimacy is twisted by Louisa’s need for sexual intimacy. After Tom asks what she is doing, she answers with, “I am looking at the fire” (Dickens 56). Tom asks her what she sees, and she says, “I don't see anything in it, Tom, particularly. But since I have been looking at it, I have been wondering about you and me, grown up” (Dickens 57). At first, it may appear as if she is merely thinking about their growing older, but there is more to it than that. In a sense, Louisa is still a child, and, from a psychoanalytic perspective, “[a] child’s play is determined by wishes: in point of fact by a single wish… the wish to be big and grown up… he imitates what he knows about the lives of his elders” (Freud 313). For Louisa, who has lived her whole life in the world of Facts, the factual information she has about grown-ups is that they get married. This information is on her mind as she stares into the fire—the symbol of sexual desire—and thinks about Tom and herself in the classroom where the norms are subverted.

To a certain extent, Louisa knows that these lustful desires are not acceptable. Whether that is because she knows that they are immoral or because she associates them with pleasure, which is looked down upon in a world of Facts, is unclear. She does say, “I have such unmanageable thoughts” (Dickens 57). Her thoughts follow neither the morals of Victorian England nor the rules of the world of Facts that she has been taught. As she has only been approached in a sexual manner by the repressed Bounderby, up to this point, who repulses and represses her, she, in turn, represses her own drives and desires. So much so, when Gradgrind approaches her about marriage to Bounderby, she accepts by stating, “What does it matter?” (Dickens 100). Repressed both by Bounderby and herself, this is the state she is in when she is introduced to Harthouse.

The character of Harthouse acts as both a surrogate and a chain for Louisa. Harthouse is the epitome of the unconscious Id. In psychoanalytic theory, the unconscious Id is the source of all desires and demands immediate satisfaction. The Id is easily bored as well. Dickens uses the words “bore” or “bored” four times in the short description he gives of Harthouse’s life and the multiple endeavors of fancy he has undertaken (124-25). His excursions range from being in the military to sailing around the world. In each of these endeavors, he became “bored,” much like the unconscious desires, which act on impulse only to become bored when those desires are fulfilled. Louisa meets this man when she is unhappiest in her marriage—when her desires are most frustrated—and projects her desires onto him.

 Louisa starts to care for Harthouse only because he fools her into thinking that he actually cares for Tom. Tom is the only person in the novel who can claim Louisa’s love, and Harthouse knows this. Harthouse makes the observation that “[t]his whelp [Tom] is the only creature she [Louisa] cares for” (Dickens 130). Louisa, a person who does not really know what love is, loves her brother over any other “creature.” Knowing this, Harthouse makes an attempt to gain her confidence. He does this by admitting to her that he knows about Tom’s gambling problem and will devote himself to helping Tom break his addiction. Louisa sees this as Harthouse’s caring for Tom. Dickens writes, “After this, there was a smile upon Louisa’s face that day, for someone else” (174). The “someone else” is Harthouse. Louisa is drawn to Harthouse because he seems to mirror her love for Tom.

Louisa’s projection of her illicit desires onto Harthouse causes her to feel secure enough to approach Tom in a sexual manner, but whether she does this intentionally or not is unknown. In an attempt to create a safe haven for Tom to confess his crime, she enters his bedroom wearing “a loose robe” in the middle of the night (Dickens 184). The combination of “a loose robe” and the late hour paints a compromising picture of Louisa. The robe that she wears is not secure on her body, but “loose,” making herself sexually vulnerable. This sexual vulnerability is taken further when she says to Tom, “I am here...barefoot, unclothed, undistinguishable in the darkness” (Dickens 184). Louisa uses the word “unclothed,” as if she has completely forgotten about even the “loose robe” that she has donned. She has made herself sexually available to him in the dark. She even attempts to ease his mind about her being his sister by saying that she is “undistinguishable in the darkness.” She says this in order to coax him into confessing, but this phrase carries a sexual undertone. She is also saying that sexually, he would not have to worry about her being his sister. Tom ignores her placating voice and leaves her desires unfulfilled, much the same way as years before when she married Bounderby.

 Years previously, Tom approached Louisa to gain a vow of affection from her after she had spent years under Bounderby’s repressive being. Tom’s attempt plays to her sexual desires, but ultimately leaves her even more frustrated and repressed. Dickens writes, “Louisa still stood looking at the fire. Her brother glanced at her face with greater interest than usual, and, encircling her waist with his arm, drew her coaxingly to him” (94). Again, the motif of the fire shows up in this scene, signaling the underlying current of sexual desire. How Louisa responds to Tom’s advances is telling. Dickens continues, “He pressed her in his arms, and kissed her cheek. She returned the kiss, but still looked at the fire” (94). Even when it seems as if they would be placated, Louisa represses her sexual desires. The sentence reads as if she coldly, stiffly “returned the kiss,” as if she were just woodenly going through the motions. However, she was still looking at the fire, as if in the back of her mind the desires were still there, wanting to be fulfilled. This scene is mirrored later in the novel with Harthouse.

Louisa’s feelings for Tom, exacerbated by Harthouse, come to a climax when she nearly has an affair with Harthouse. The tension of the scene builds as Harthouse “detain[s] her with his encircling arm” (Dickens 205). The tension of whether to meet or not is increased by the touch of his arm around her, which gives her the gratification Bounderby never gave her. The “encircling arm” and Harthouse’s intentions mirror Tom’s attempt to obtain a vow of affection from Louisa. Dickens projects the sexual tension of the scene onto the weather in the phrases “rapidly increasing noise of heavy rain” and “a thunder-storm rolling up” (205). The former serves as a correlation to the heavy breathing of two lovers intertwined in the heat of passion, while the latter acts as the build-up to the lovers’ climax.

 The climax between lovers pertains to both sexual desires and the unleashing of Louisa’s repressed desires. Dickens shows this unleashing by describing the damage that the storm, or climax, does to the city. Dickens uses the words “burst,” “overflowed,” and “under water” to describe the damage done (207). The word “burst” denotes that a container has failed. In the text, this word is used to describe drainpipes’ failing under the deluge, but it can also be read as Louisa’s conscience failing her. This failing of her conscience would allow her unconscious, repressed desires, to burst out and overcome her—as if she were “under water.” This unleashing of her desires leads to her collapse as her world of Facts—the drainpipes, gutters, and Coketown—buckles under the idea of giving into pleasure. The mirroring of Louisa’s mental state and the natural world has been noticed by Lewis Darcy as well. Darcy argues that the grim, colorless descriptions of both Coketown and Louisa act as a warning of what will happen to the English landscape and population if utilitarianism is followed to its extreme, as is seen in the novel. Louisa, subjected to the extreme of utilitarianism, has no understanding of pleasure as a result of her repression by Bounderby and Gradgrind, who themselves are repressed by the economic and political conditions in the novel.

Harthouse, the catalyst and surrogate for Louisa’s illicit desires toward Tom, ties her to the world of Facts. Harthouse is a man of pleasure, but he is from the same world of Facts that Bounderby and Gradgrind revere, and thus, also binds Louisa to that world. It is through this very connection that Harthouse enters Louisa’s life in the first place. Harthouse’s brother is part of the House of Commons and has the ear of “the hard Fact fellows” (Dickens 125). Through his brother, Harthouse is brought into association with Gradgrind and Bounderby, and ultimately Louisa. Harthouse works with Gradgrind in statistics, or the collection of facts (Dickens 125). Harthouse, as part of the world of Facts, acts as a chain for Louisa. She cannot divulge or express her desires, due to the economic conditions and elevation of Fact over pleasure, which eventually leads to her collapse and fall from the world of Facts and her rescue by Sissy Jupe.

Sissy Jupe, the girl from the circus, represents the world of Fancy; she takes pleasure in life. Although Sissy comes from the circus, she has spent a large portion of her life in the world of Facts. She attended Gradgrind’s school and lived under his family’s care after her father left. The world of Fancy has been present in Louisa’s life since the mirror stage, which is introduced at the circus in the form of Sissy. Gradgrind’s inability to catalogue Sissy showcases the foreign nature of Fancy in the Industrial Age in Hard Times. Dickens writes of Gradgrind that “he was not quite sure that if he had been required, for example, to tick her off into columns in parliamentary return, he would have known how to divide her” (92). This inability to be catalogued is part of what allows Sissy to save Louisa.

If Harthouse is the epitome of the unconscious Id, then Sissy is the Ego. In psychoanalytic theory, the Ego is the part of the mind that tames the unconscious and represses illicit desires, while fulfilling its desires in a socially acceptable manner. Her inability to be catalogued like a fact, allows her to control Harthouse. After Louisa’s collapse, Sissy approaches Harthouse with a deal: “You may be sure, sir, you will never see her again as long as you live” (Dickens 224). Harthouse is surprised by both this supposed “deal” as well as the one initiating it. Dickens writes that “her modest fearlessness, her truthfulness… presented something in which he was so inexperienced, and against which he knew any of his weapons would fall so powerless; that not a word could he rally to his belief” (224-25). Harthouse, the man who has sailed around the world and fought in the army, has never experienced anything that could have prepared him to deal with Sissy. Harthouse gives into pleasure based upon the facts known to him. Thus, when he decides to seduce Louisa, he bases that decision on the facts at hand, mainly that she is repulsed by her husband. He encounters Louisa through the world of Fact. His whole life is dictated by economic factors and information. Without his money and profit, he is unable to engage in pleasure, and none of that has prepared him for Sissy, the woman who has identity outside of economics.

Harthouse’s ill-preparedness forces him to depart from Fact and to resort to Fancy to try and get his way. The best response he can conjure up is the following: “I cling to the belief that there is yet hope that I am not condemned to perpetual exile from that lady’s [Louisa] presence” (Dickens 225). Sissy, representing Fancy, denies him by saying, “There is not the least hope” (Dickens 225). Sissy takes away any possibility of hope and pleasure, so Louisa will not succumb to her illicit desires. Harthouse resorts back to facts to persuade her. He says, “‘You probably are not aware that I am here on a public kind of business…. You probably are not aware of that, but I assure you it’s the fact’…. It had no effect on Sissy, fact or no fact” (Dickens 227). As the representation of Fancy, Sissy is impervious to facts or being catalogued like one. She has transcended the economic conditions of the Industrial Age. Because of this transcendence, she is able to repress Harthouse.

Sissy is capable of controlling Harthouse without being bound to him or having any other factors affect her. At first, it seems like she has bound herself to him but she has not. Unlike Bounderby’s self-defeating manipulation through the use of his pension and the façade of his life story, Sissy only requires a promise to attain her goal—a simple one at that. She promises that she will tell no one why Harthouse has left Coketown (Dickens 228). Unlike Bounderby and people from the world of Fact, Sissy has no need to tie herself to any sort of repression through economic means; she can simply leave Harthouse behind and forget him. This is the power that Sissy has. Her ability to save Louisa from her illicit desires and self-imposed repression extends beyond controlling Harthouse. Because of Sissy’s connection to the circus, or the world of Fancy, she is able to help repress Tom.

Tom’s gambling addiction, a perversion of the fantasy of the self-made man and a condition caused by Gradgrind, leads to his committing robbery and an “emotional” connection between Louisa and Harthouse. The start of Tom’s perversion can be seen in the early part of his life. He says, “I wish I could collect all the Facts...and all the Figures...and blow them all up together! However, when I go to live with old Bounderby, I'll have my revenge” (Dickens 55). Tom’s goal is to indulge in pleasure, so he chooses the world of gambling in which to do so. This choice is curious as he is still tied to economics, and, in a sense, he is in the same line of work as Harthouse—statistics. Tom plays the odds for economic gain. His pleasure revolves around economics, specifically perverting the lessons in figures that his father gave him when he was young.

Tom’s corruption very negatively impacts Louisa, as he plays off her feelings for him, in order to receive money from her to pay off his debts. Tom’s debt puts enormous strain on Louisa. She says, “[H]e has wanted in one sum as much as a hundred pounds. I have not been able to give it to him. I have felt uneasy for the consequences of his being involved” (Dickens 168). Tom’s addiction, his perverted ties to economics, deeply affects Louisa. She cannot confide in Bounderby for fear of harming Tom and she cannot go to her father for the same reasons. Ultimately, she does not want to bring harm to Tom because she loves him. Because she does not want to bring Tom’s addiction to light, she forces herself to live in fear of the consequences of his actions. Her fear and repression are linked to Tom’s own form of repression connected to the economic conditions in Hard Times. Louisa cannot break away from Tom because of the economics involved and needs the help of Sissy Jupe.

Sissy cannot control Tom in the same way that she did Harthouse. Because of a crime Tom commits, the process is more complex and requires the circus—the world of Fancy. The repression of Tom is so severe that at the point of his death many years later, he is described as a “lonely brother, many thousands of miles away” (Dickens 287). The repression of Tom, who represents the symbol of Louisa’s illicit desires, involves the ringmaster of the circus, Mr. Sleary. The undertaking of getting Tom under control is challenging enough that Sissy cannot do it alone, but must enlist the aid of the “leader” of the world of Fancy, Mr. Sleary. In doing do so, Dickens pits the two worlds against each other to see if the world of Facts, in the form of the character Bitzer—Gradgrind’s prized pupil—will have the last word over Tom. Invariably, Bitzer fails in keeping Tom in England, as Sissy and Sleary succeed in outsmarting him.

Despite Sissy’s success in repressing Louisa’s illicit desires, Louisa is still left with the scars from her childhood and years of a terrible marriage. As a result of her scars and stunted sexual and mental growth, Louisa never remarries or has children. At first glance, it may seem that Sissy has failed and has not redeemed Louisa. On the contrary, Louisa is redeemed, vicariously, through Sissy. Sissy does get married and has children—raising them with Louisa’s help. Sissy, in her own act of marriage, fulfills the sexual desire that Louisa has but does so in a socially acceptable way. Sissy, representing the world of Fancy, simultaneously represses the illicit desires of Louisa and fulfills them.

An undeniable connection exists between the psychological repression and the economic conditions found in Hard Times. Each character of the story faces their own form of psychological repression. For Louisa, this is her illicit desire for Tom; therefore, any pleasure she actually wants to experience is bound to her immoral inclinations that would have been condemned in the Victorian era. She only senses those desires, however, because of her father’s warped sense of sexuality—that sexual intercourse is little more than a type of business transaction between a man and woman. Louisa’s sexual growth and understanding, thereby, is subsequently warped and twisted, but in a different way than her father’s. Not only that, but she is repressed by her husband, Bounderby. He is repressive of himself, Louisa, and his mother, all in an attempt to live up to the golden standard of the Industrial Age—the self-made man. Both Tom and Harthouse, though creatures of pleasure, are psychologically subject to the economic conditions of their time. They only pursue pleasures that they have all the Facts about and that their personal economics can handle; Tom, though, is forced to borrow beyond his means. Sissy Jupe is the only one whose pleasure does not hinge upon her economic welfare and is not psychologically repressed. Because of this singularity, she is able to free Louisa from her repression.

These findings corroborate my claim that the psychological conditions of the characters of Hard Times result from England’s economic and political conditions, as portrayed within the novel. These findings also demonstrate how a purely Marxist reading of the text focues on the struggle portrayed between socioeconomic classes, ignores the psychological struggle of the different characters, and “conflate[s] the realistic parts with the whole novel, ignoring its other genres” (Clausson 170). Reading Hard Times through a psychoanalytical lens actually deepens a Marxist reading, while exploring other genres. This type of reading of the text also causes one to wonder about what effect that economics had on the psyche of the English people in the Victorian and Industrial Ages.

Works Cited

Clausson, Nils. “Dickens’s Genera Mixta: What Kind of a Novel Is Hard Times?” Texas Studies in Literature and Language, vol. 52, no. 2, 2010, pp. 157-180. Web. Retrieved February 25, 2018.

Cohen, William A. “Interiors: Sex and the Body in Dickens.” Critical Survey, vol. 17, no. 2, 2005, pp. 5-19. Web. Retrieved February 25, 2018.

---. “Manual Conduct in Great Expectations.” Modern Critical Interpretations: Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations. Edited by Harold Bloom, Chelsea House Publishers, 2000, pp. 53-88. Print.

Darcy, Lewis. “Melancholia and Machinery: The Dystopian Landscape and Mindscape.” Dickens Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 1, Mar. 2014, pp. 17-31. Web. Retrieved February 25, 2018.

Dalrymple, Theodore. “Hard Times Again.” The American Conservative, 23 Jan. 2012, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/hard-times-again/. Accessed 4 Mar. 2018.

Deneau, Daniel P. “The Brother-Sister Relationship in Hard Times” Dickensian; Sept. 1, 1964; 60, 344; ProQuest, p. 173. Web. Retrieved February 25, 2018.

Dickens, Charles, and Kate Flint. Hard Times for These Times. London, Penguin, 2003.

Furneaux, Holly, and Anne Schwan. “Dickens and Sex.” Critical Survey, vol. 17, no. 2, 2005, pp. 1-106. EBSCOhost. Retrieved December 10, 2017.

Freud, Sigmund. “Creative Writers and Daydreaming” The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. 3rd ed. Edited by David H. Richter. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016, pp. 312-316.

Hartog, Curt. “The Rape of Miss Havisham.” Studies in the Novel, vol. 14, no. 3, 1982, pp. 248-265. EBSCOhost. Retrieved December 11, 2017.

Lacan, Jacques. “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience.” The Critical Tradition: Classical Texts and Contemporary Trends. 3rd ed. Edited by David H. Richter. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016. 312-316. Print.

McKnight, Natalie. “‘A Little Humoring of Pussy’s Points!’; Or, Sex—The Real Unsolved Mystery of Edwin Drood.” Dickens Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 1, Mar. 2013, pp. 55-63. EBSCOhost. Retrieved December 10, 2017.

Pollatschek, Nele. “‘Discard the Word Fancy Altogether!’ Charles Dickens’s Defense of Ambiguity in Hard Times.” Dickens Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 4, Dec. 2013, pp. 278-287. Web. Retrieved February 25, 2018.

Snider, Jessi. “‘Call Yourself Cecilia’: Interpellation, Resistance, and the (Re)Naming of Sissy Jupe in Hard Times.” Journal of Language, Literature and Culture, vol. 63, no. 1, Apr. 2016, pp. 50-60. Web. Retrieved February 25, 2018.

Starr, Elizabeth. “Manufacturing Novels: Charles Dickens on the Hearth in Coketown.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language, vol. 51, no. 3, 2009, pp. 317-340. Web. Retrieved February 25, 2018.

Waters, Catherine. Series Preface. Dickens, Sexuality and Gender. Edited by Lillian Nayder, Routledge, 2017, pp. xi-xii.

Between Angel and Monster: Complicating the Binary in Christina Rossetti's "Goblin Market"

By Hannah Carlson

~ The themes presented in this essay are later developed into a longer paper that Carlson completed for Senior Thesis, the culminating course for all graduating English majors from Northwest University, from which she graduated in 2018. ~

Blonde hair braided back in a tight bun, and her jet-black eyeshadow accents her level gaze. As she jabs a gloved fist at the camera, Ronda Rousey says, “Don’t hate me because I’m strong. Strong is beautiful.” The image splits, and a laughing Rousey clothed in a white dress squares off with her dark double. Tossing her golden hair, she declares, “I am not one without the other” (Pantene).  

Pantene’s most recent commercial illustrates the binary concept of Angel and Monster established by authors Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar. The theory reveals a tendency in Victorian literature to portray women either as an angelic, domesticated figure or as a terrifying monster. While prominent in feminist criticism and useful in its readings of nineteenth-century authorial suppression and confinement, this theory fails to address a woman’s ability to inhabit a middle ground between Angel and Monster. In traditional feminist readings of Christina Rossetti’s “Goblin Market,” the sisters, Laura and Lizzie, are cited as Monster and Angel, respectively. However, in the same way that Pantene’s commercial merges strength and beauty, Rossetti’s poem complicates the binary by asserting that Lizzie’s strength is beautiful and altogether feminine. Rossetti also highlights the balance between Angel and Monster by subverting the patriarchal power structures present in Marxist and Lacanian thought. In Lacanian terms, this subversion is achieved through Lizzie’s rejection of the phallus and subsequent reliance on and ability to draw power from the distinct womanly space of Laura’s and her home. “Goblin Market” challenges these male-dominated theories, but more importantly, it complicates the traditional feminist idea that the home, and symbolically the womb, is a source of confinement.   In a revolutionary move, Rossetti produces a vision of the womb as a uniquely feminine wellspring of creativity, strength, and renewal.

Most literary critics acknowledge the tension between the public sphere of the market and the domestic sphere of the sisters’ home. Kristin Escobar points out Laura’s inability to separate the two, which allows the temptations of the market to affect her life at home.  On the other hand, Lizzie has power over both environments, and according to Victor Mendoza, “her agency emerges from veiled, nonequivalent modes of exchange” (930). Lizzie is able to participate in and use the self-alienating capitalist means of exchange by […] only because she is firmly rooted in her agrarian, non-alienated life.

In her essay, “The Rossettian Formula: No Love Without Suffering,” Robbie McLaughlan pinpoints the other reason for Lizzie’s success: her love of Laura. Lizzie’s desire remains unfulfilled in any possible Lacanian or Freudian application of the phallus. Instead, her desire for wholeness finds fulfillment after she successfully faces the goblin men and restores Laura. In contrast to Gilbert and Gubar’s portrayal of both the home and the womb as a source of confinement, my own argument aligns with and extends McLaughlin’s reading. Rossetti’s portrayal of Lizzie opposes the idea that a woman “might inevitably feel that now she has been imprisoned within her own alien and loathsome body…[and that] she has become not only a prisoner but a monster” (Gilbert and Gubar 914). Far from feeling as if she is imprisoned within her home, Lizzie draws strength from the home represented by the symbolic power of the womb. Similarly, Hélène Cixous comments on womanly desires: “[A]mong them is the gestation drive—just like the desire to write: a desire to live self from within, a desire for the swollen belly, for language, for blood” (891). Cixous understands that the womb works as a mode of overflowing creativity, both on symbolic and biological levels. The rhetoric surrounding Lizzie paints a picture of a woman who, rather than feeling confined by her body and the realm of the home, uses them as a source of strength to propel her act of self-sacrifice.

The goblin men’s cry of “Come buy, come buy” situates the poem in a capitalist economy (4). The procession of foreign fruits including the “Citrons from the South” highlights the alien nature of the scene (29). Laura exemplifies the Marxist thought that “the laborer’s own physical and mental energy, his individual life….is an activity which turns against him” (253). She transfers from the previous agrarian state occupied by her and her sister where “Moon and stars gazed in at them” and the “wind sang to them a lullaby” to that of a commodity in a capitalistic market (Escobar 136). A clear picture of alienation occurs after Laura returns to Lizzie while the sisters complete their chores. Rossetti descriptively reveals the affects of the two women: Lizzie does her chores “with an open heart” while Laura completes hers mechanically, “in an absent dream” (210-211). The inability to work in the household economy cumulates when “She no more swept the house / Tended the fowls or cows / …but sat down listless in the chimney-nook” (293-297). Laura, therefore, “does not feel happy, but rather unhappy; [s]he does not grow physically or mentally but rather tortures [her] body and ruins [her] mind” (Marx 252). Laura no longer takes pleasure in her work or participates in the atmosphere of the home because she has tasted the alienated fruits of the goblin men.

In the initial scene when the sisters hear the goblin cry echoing through the woods, it is Lizzie who “veiled her blushes,” and, in response to Laura’s exhortations to look, replied, “Their evil gifts would harm us” (35, 65). Her modest blush and clear statement of moral truth seem to establish Lizzie as an angelic figure. However, an angel lacks the ability to challenge the structures that confine her. Yet, for the love of Laura, Lizzie “put a silver penny in her purse” (324).  Lizzie is well aware of the modes of power present in capitalistic exchange. She arrives prepared and, unlike her sister, forces the goblin men to meet her on even ground. Mendoza writes, “Lizzie’s coin helps sanction their [the goblin men’s] interpellation by lending her its symbolic authority” (931-32).  She emerges from the safety of her home out of her love to restore her sister. Here Lizzie is no longer blushing and veiled, but rather striding through the twilight to confront the goblin men. Escobar states that Lizzie establishes her ferocity “by mastering the masculine and public realm of goblins in service to the sister she loves” (133). McLaughlan agrees with the statement, “Suffering may be the supreme token of seriousness, yet it is also the supreme token of love. More than that, it is through suffering that love is expressed” (260). The goblin men know nothing of sisterly love, so they then begin to heap insults on Lizzie calling her “Cross-gained” and “uncivil.” Lizzie refuses to respond, inciting the goblin men to inflict physical abuse. Lizzie is only able to stand firm against the goblin men’s onslaught because of her love for Laura.

The poem’s focus then shifts away from the aggressors and towards the heroine. Line 408 depicts Lizzie as “white and golden.” A list of images follows: “like a lily in a flood,” “like a tree,” “like a royal virgin town” (409-18). The distinct upright imagery of each simile opens the door for Lacanian analysis. In his article “The Meaning of the Phallus,” Lacan states that “in order to be the phallus…the woman will reject an essential part of her femininity” (655). When earlier, Laura falls prey to phallic desire, in this case, however, Lizzie produces a confusing half-phallic, half-feminine picture. Rossetti postures her as strong and erect; however, the words used to describe her are feminine: “lily,” “fruit-crowned,” “blossoms,” and “virgin.” Though she stands upright, Lizzie’s power is expressed silently. Rossetti explicitly states three times that Lizzie’s mouth remained shut, but she “laughed in heart” (442). This illustration of enclosed inaccessibility plays into a Cixousian critique of Freud’s belief that Medusa was a symbol of horror because she represented a “woman who is unapproachable and repels all sexual desires” (Freud 317). Lizzie’s fortitude places her as a repulsive object in the eyes of the goblin men. Since they cannot have her, they seek to destroy her beauty. Mendoza comments on the goblin men’s inability to cause any lasting damage saying, “[s]uch violence can only ever amount to an impotent acting-out” (933). Thus, even when the goblin men act, they remain powerless. Lizzie laughs, but she does so inwardly, knowing that if she opens herself up, what power she has gained will dissipate. Lizzie clearly counters her original angelic demeanor by enacting a perfect representation of Cixous’ Medusa, who “you only have to look at…straight on to see… And she’s not deadly. She’s beautiful and she’s laughing” (885). Lizzie refuses to reject her femininity, and instead weaponizes it. She takes and retains the beauty of the Angel, while also exhibiting the strength of the Monster. The result is that, though the goblin men have done their worst, Lizzie emerges with the saving juices and only a minimal damage of “ache” and “tingle” (458).

In the end, both Laura and Lizzie find fulfillment in the enclosed place of their home: “Their mother-hearts beset with fear / Their lives bound up in tender lives” (546-547). They are fulfilled in a women-centered utopia, where they teach their children of “the wicked, quaint fruit-merchant men” (553). Laura and Lizzie fully control their surroundings and bodies. They have obtained Marx’s species-being: “It is life engendering life. In the art of life-activity lies the entire character of the species” (254). The lack of male presence emphasizes that their wombs, their children, and their home are Lizzie and Laura’s sources of contentment. The final lines of the poem highlight that the strength for renewal, creativity, and redemption can be found in the uniquely feminine space of the womb, which acts “to lift one if one totters down / To strengthen whilst one stands” (566-567). Lizzie and Laura are upright without dependence on phallic power, but through community and womanhood.

In defiance of Gilbert and Gubar, Lizzie is both Angel and Monster. She exhibits what Cixous calls “a force that will not be cut off but will knock the winds out of the codes” (882).  Her purity and moral code give the goblin men’s sexual advances no power, while her tenacious upheaval of both Marxist and Lacanian economies show she is anything but weak. She is not confined within the walls of her home, nor does she see her body as a vessel of containment. Her strength is cultivated through her love of Laura and is rooted in the private economy of their home.

Works Cited

Cixous, Hélène et al. “The Laugh of the Medusa.” Signs, vol. 1, no. 4, 1976, pp. 875-93. www.jstor.org/stable/3173239.

Escobar, Kirsten E. “Female Saint, Female Prodigal: Christina Rossetti’s ‘Goblin Market.’” Religion and the Arts, vol. 5, nos. 1-2, 2001, pp. 129-54.

Freud, Sigmund. “Medusa’s Head.” The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. Ed. David H. Richter. New York: St. Martin’s, 1989, p. 317.

Gilbert, Sandra M., and Susan Gubar. “The Woman Writer and the Anxiety of Authorship.” The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. Ed. David H. Richter. New York: St. Martin’s, 1989, pp. 903-15.

Lacan, Jacques. “The Meaning of the Phallus.” The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and

Contemporary Trends. Ed. David H. Richter. New York: St. Martin’s, 1989, pp. 649-55.

Marx, Karl. “The Alienation of Labor.” The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. Ed. David H. Richter. New York: St. Martin’s, 1989, pp. 250-55.

McLaughlan, Robbie. “The Rossettian Formula: No Love Without Suffering.” Victoriographies: A Journal of Nineteenth-Century Writing, 1790-1914, vol. 5, no. 3, 2015, pp. 251-68.

Mendoza, Victor Rom

an. “‘Come Buy’: The Crossing of Sexual and Consumer Desire in Christina Rossetti’s ‘Goblin Market.’” ELH, vol. 73, no. 4, 2006, pp. 913–947.

Pantene. Pantene North America. N.p., n.d. <https://www.facebook.com/PanteneNA/?fref=nf>.

Rossetti, Christina. “Goblin Market.” Christina Rossetti (1830-1894). University of Toronto Press, n.d. <http://faculty.smu.edu/nschwart/2311/Goblin_Market.htm>.

Gatsby's Foil: Analyzing a Parallel Relationship

By Isaac Fox

An initial reading of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby might suggest that the relationship between its narrator, Nick Carraway, and his love interest, Jordan Baker, is merely peripheral to the central relationship of Gatsby and Daisy. A more thorough analysis of these figures, however, reveals a series of intrinsic inconsistencies within both Nick’s and Jordan’s characters as well as their relationship with one another; these vacillations and contradictions serve as an imperative foil to Gatsby’s unadulterated single-mindedness.

Though many of Gatsby’s qualities can be debated, his relentlessness in his pursuit of Daisy cannot. From the moment Daisy enters into Gatsby’s life, he has only one purpose: obtaining Daisy; he seeks after her as his own personal “Holy Grail” (149). The cost is irrelevant to him, as is anything that stands in his way, including morality. In reference to the extravagant mansion Gatsby purchases, Jordan tells Nick at one point how “Gatsby bought that house so that Daisy would be just across the bay” (78). Then, within this “house,” Gatsby’s great monument to Daisy, he hosts lavish and fanciful parties to attract her attention so she might “wander into one of his parties, some night…but she never did” (79). Gatsby’s infatuation with and obsessive pursuit of Daisy is incontrovertible; it is against this unbending resolve that Nick and Jordan are contrasted in their changeable and noncommittal relationship.

Fitzgerald, utilizing Nick as the narrator, sets the stage from the initial page of the novel by giving the reader a window into Nick’s internal contradictions. The narrator first tells the reader how he is “inclined to reserve all judgments” of other people, describing this posture as some kind of noble trait he possesses (1). In the same sentence, however, he goes on to explain that this habit of being non-judgmental has made him “the victim of not a few veteran bores,” which is a rather unkind judgment for one being so apparently non-judgmental (1). Later, as Nick is clearly falling in love with Jordan, he tells himself he is not in love with her—sad attempt to maintain the cool and distant persona he shows to the world…even himself (57). It is clear throughout the novel that Nick holds a rather high opinion of himself that elevates him above those around him. Though he claims to be “one of the few honest people” he has ever known, his refusal to be honest, even with himself regarding his feelings for Jordan, demonstrates how false this assertion is (59). This self-deception eliminates even the possibility of being honest with her on the subject. Additionally, Nick pursues Jordan without informing her he is already in a long-distance relationship of some kind “back home,” obviously undermining his claims to personal virtue and honesty (58). Throughout the entirety of the novel, Nick continues to affirm his indifference and, more subtly, his moral superiority. Nick’s words and actions towards Jordan, however, repeatedly show how the very same lack of integrity that characterizes the majority of the other figures in the novel has likewise corrupted his own life.

For her part, Jordan is no better, as she displays a similar moral ambiguity and vacillates in her words and actions. Throughout her life, she has intentionally avoided men who seem to be intelligent or discerning, expressing her unwillingness “to endure being at a disadvantage” (58). As a result of her insecurities, Jordan falls into a lifestyle of habitual deception, confessing to being “incurably dishonest” (58). Those habits enable her to maintain her own indifference to the world around her, much like Nick experiences. This aloofness, acting as a barrier to protect her, also extends to the people in the world around her, including anyone toward whom she may have legitimate romantic feelings. Surprisingly, Jordan fails to recognize Nick as a threat to her world of controlled sameness, and as a result, allows herself to care about him. During an interesting conversation about her driving ability, Nick remarks that Jordan is a terrible driver and should be more careful, to which she responds by saying that she is careful (58). Nick flatly disagrees, and Jordan then contradicts herself by admitting, “Well, other people are [careful]” (58). She likes Nick expressly because she believes he is not one of those careless types of people who would be likely to get into an accident with her (58). This is an especially remarkable confession from Jordan considering her typically cynical perspective of the world—one that demonstrates her trust placed in Nick. In this, she contradicts her own nature yet again by trusting him and continues to exemplify this pervasive vacillation.

Together, Nick and Jordan have an array of inconsistencies and contradictions that demonstrate their characters as foils to Gatsby even further. The day after Daisy accidentally kills Myrtle Wilson, Jordan calls Nick on the phone (154). During this conversation, they both have very conflicting positions toward each other that change even in the middle of the conversation. Jordan tells Nick that she felt he was not very “nice” to her the previous night, but says she wants to see him anyway (155). Nick asks her how it could possibly matter whether or not he was “nice” to her given the circumstances, but then adds that he also wants to see her (155). However, the vacillation between them takes over; they do not meet at all; and Nick apparently hangs up on her. Each of the instances previously discussed demonstrates the patterns of instability in both Nick and Jordan, ultimately culminating in their final exchange.

The last conversation between Nick and Jordan clearly displays the finality of the damage wrought by such self-deception and transient commitment. Earlier in the novel, Nick displays an apparent indifference to hanging up on Jordan, but the tension in their final conversation makes it clear that he does indeed care. Jordan, at first, similarly feigns indifference as she informs Nick that she is now engaged to another man; she then tips her hand as she professes that she “doesn't give a damn” about him now (177). By this overplayed statement of apparent dismissal, she is actually displaying her vulnerability and how hurt she truly is by his having broken up with her over the telephone. Jordan is able to see things more clearly, and she brings their relationship back full circle to the discussion about her poor driving skills (177). In choosing to trust Nick, who turns out to be just one more of the careless people she always hated, her own carelessness is unveiled before her. She verbalizes that she made a mistake and challenges Nick by saying, “I thought you were rather an honest, straightforward person. I thought it was your secret pride” (177). Nick responds with a profound and revealing statement: “I’m thirty... I’m five years too old to lie to myself and call it honor” (177). Finally, the conclusion of the novel reveals the main characters’ internal flaw of self-deception—not in a manner that would bring them back together, but just enough for them to acknowledge their errors before permanently parting ways. In this final exchange, Nick and Jordan play out the last and ultimate contradiction to their entire relationship; it is only during their very last moment as they sever their connection entirely that they are finally and truly honest with one another. In myriad ways, they are clearly, with all their vacillating contradictions, a darkly reflected image of Gatsby in his vain but purely steadfast attempts to achieve his dream wrapped around Daisy.

In this reverse imaging of Gatsby, Nick, and Jordan, together and individually, serve as foils to him. Gatsby certainly does seek his own happiness; he pursues Daisy for all the same selfish reasons as do the rest of the cast of characters in the novel, but he does so with reckless abandon and a resolute focus that does not waver, no matter the obstacles. He gives himself entirely to the pursuit of his dream. Despite the honor Gatsby supposedly exemplifies, in reality he is following the same selfish course as all the other characters—just in a different way.

 In a similar fashion, Nick and Jordan pursue their own happiness with an identical egocentric motivation. Unlike Gatsby’s pure, unadulterated and passionate drive, however, Nick and Jordan utilize an internal duplicity in the façade of their indifference—a shield meant to protect them from the meaninglessness that consumes their superficial microcosm of the wider, aimless world. It is interesting to note that Nick describes Jordan as a “clean, hard, limited person, who dealt in universal skepticism,” which he sees as a compliment (79). The two of them subconsciously live at war within themselves in their noncommittal and intrinsic vacillation—they are cynical and cosmopolitan on the one hand, but vulnerable and human, desiring a meaningful relationship, on the other. After witnessing the chaotic confrontation between Gatsby and Tom Buchanan, Nick proudly states that “there was Jordan beside me, who, unlike Daisy, was too wise ever to carry well-forgotten dreams from age to age” (135). Even here, Nick subconsciously places himself and Jordan above the foolishness of Gatsby and Daisy, though their ends are ultimately the same. For all of Nick and Jordan’s mental gymnastics and emotional contortions to protect themselves, the same emptiness the other characters of Fitzgerald’s cast experience is their only reward in the end. Regardless which path one might choose, whether attempting to guard oneself and avoid all the “careless” people in the world, or plunging in completely, holding nothing back, the outcome is the same. Whether it is an oblivion that ends with a violent explosion, like Gatsby, or an oblivion that ends in silence and heart-rending regret, like Nick and Jordan, the final result is the same empty oblivion either way. The pursuit of happiness in a world of superficiality will never lead to anything less than the abortion of dreams and the disembowelment of hope.

Work Cited

Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. New York, Scribner, 2004.