Juror Organised Highly Conscientious Philosophy Essay

Juror Organised Highly Conscientious Philosophy Essay 12 Angry Men is a story of 12 juries making decision for a boy who have been accused for murdering his own father. A jury not only symbolizes democracy, but also embodies important cultural values which teamwork. The movie, 12 Angry Men clearly depicts how a random group of people can come together for a common goal, and in this case specifically to reach a final verdict. Each member possesses specific personality traits and diverse backgrounds that affect the decision making process. In the beginning, eleven juries out of twelve voted guilty. Only Juror No.8 voted the boy is not guilty. Juror 8 thought that they should re-examine the evidences again and not simply make decision on the boys life within five minutes. All of them agreed to speak out their opinions about the case. Most of them voted guilty based on the evidences and testimonials by the witnesses. 2.0 Personalities According to the Gordon Allport, personality is the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychological systems that determine his unique adjustment to his environment In other words, the ways in which a person reacts or interacts with others. Actually, it is the mixture of characteristics or traits that form a persons character and makes the person unique from another. In the movie 12 Angry Men the twelve juries got twelve different personalities. Hence, by using the personality traits models, like Big Five Model we have analyzed what kind of personalities they fall into. 2.1 Juror#1- Responsible, Conscientiousness Firstly, Juror #1 was the leader (foreman) of the twelve jury board. Throughout the discussion on whether the boy who was accused as a murderer of his father is guilty or not, he acted as a responsible leader. We discover that he handled situation in an organized way, for example- at start he suggested everyone to sit by their numbers and after that when everyone was settled on their seats he explained what they are supposed to do, and also when Juror#12 was distracted from his responsibility as a juror, Juror#1 reminded him his reason to be in the juror board. So, this proves that he has high conscientiousness. Furthermore, his agreeableness is also quite high as he considered others opinion about voting at first and keeping everyones view in front according to jury numbers and so on. In addition, his emotional stability is high, he was calm throughout the discussion even when 10th Juror questioned his leadership by asking him to stop treating them as kids, he did not raise his voic e too much but he just offered Juror#10 to take over his position. 2.2 Juror#2- Mild Openness to Idea It was the first time as a juror for Juror#2, so he was at first clueless about how thing works in a juror discussion. He was not very comfortable to voice out his ideas about why he thinks the boy is guilty, he just believes the evidences and the words he heard from the case. It gives the idea that his openness to new things is not high; he is not autonomous when taking decision. But he got more involved as the discussion goes on after a while and when the Juror#8 was showing out his doubt about the truth of the evidence, Juror#2 took notice of the logic behind the doubts and eventually supported Juror#8. 2.3 Juror#3- Stubborn Next, Juror#3 was the one who changed his vote to not guilty in the end. His stubbornness made him stick towards voting guilty throughout the discussion. He did not want to listen to any opinion other than his; he also denied the facts that make the evidences doubtful, this makes him low on agreeableness. Furthermore, he is low on conscientiousness as he did not feel responsible for the boys life, he thought that the courtroom was sleepy, people are talking too much when the case was obvious, and it is just a waste of time and money for him, even when the Juror#8 was giving out his view instead of listening carefully why Juror#8 thought the boy might not be guilty Juror#3 was playing with Juror#12. Next, he also lost his temper when Juror#8 was convincing others with his reasons of having doubt on the evidences and the number of vote for not guilty was increasing, he yelled at those who changed their mind, he was emotionally unstable. 2.4 Juror#4- Organised, Highly Conscientious Now, we move to Juror#4. He gives an impression of a very professional and organized person because he supported his view about the boy being guilty with facts and logic, without simply just saying guilty because the court said so. Despite that, he is highly conscientious as he took his duty as juror seriously. He was emotionally stable and opens to others opinion. He was not influenced by others, when making decisions he was independent, rational and calm. He changed his vote only after Juror#8 and Juror#9 gave him enough evidence (e.g. remembering the movie name, marks of spectacles on the womans nose) to doubt his decision over the kid as the murderer. However, at the beginning of the discussion he showed a little negative thinking about the slum and the people who live there by saying He was born in a slum. Slums are breeding grounds for criminals, I know as a view its no secret. 2.5 Juror#5- Introvert Next, Juror#5 shared the same background in terms of environment and culture in which, the boy who was accused to be murderer grew up. He was not comfortable to judge the boy and also did not want to give reason behind his vote at first. He showed the symptoms of an introvert person. Later on when he connected the evidence with his own experience and when he was offended by having a background that was born in a slum, he changed his vote to not guilty. 2.6 Juror#6- Simple When we come to Juror#6, we can know that he was a simple man. When it was his time to give his opinion on the cause of voting guilty he simply said there was a motive like every murder case and the picture presented in the court makes it obvious that the boy killed his father, he could not argue with the fact Juror#8 brought in front of him then. He just agrees with the court decision. He never became hyper throughout the meeting; he tried to stop whenever people got into fight just like Juror#4. In the movie we could also see his feeling of responsibility towards the old man. 2.7 Juror#7- Irresponsible, Irrational We realized that Juror#7 was the most irresponsible and irrational. He wanted the discussion to finish as fast as possible so that he could go to watch a baseball match. To him, the life of a person was like a child play to him. He did not fulfill his responsibility as a jury which makes him low on conscientiousness. He related the boys past offences to judge him as guilty. 2.8 Juror#8- High in conscientiousness, Emotionally Stable Next, Juror#8 is the most important character in the story, because of him everybody started to think the case from a what if situation. He felt responsible for the boys life, he presented his opinion with logic, he thought about the reliability of the evidence presented in the court, he put a lot of effort to show the leaks in the evidences (e.g. the knife, the old man testimony about seeing the boy running down the stairs, women who saw the murder from a moving train). This proves he is high on conscientiousness. He was emotionally stable even though he was frequently questioned about his decision. Just once he lost temper for a bit because Juror#3 was not paying attention to his talk. 2.9 Juror#9- Old, Timid, Low Confidence Level The negative personalities can be detected through Juror#9. He is very old and afraid to voice out his thought. His confidence level is low as he does not have the strength to argue with the other juries who were younger than him. He was threatened by Juror#10. At a point of time he wished he was younger to voice out his argument. However, he is a very good observer. He was the second not guilty voter. He changed his vote when he saw Juror#8s view connects with his observation. His observing quality supported Juror#8s doubt about the evidences throughout. His decision making was based on intuition where he himself also not sure whether the story told by the defendant was true or not. He just thinks that they need to discuss further before sending the defendant for the execution. 2.10 Juror#10- Hyper, Emotionally Unstable The most emotional character was Juror#10 as he was the most hyper, emotionally unstable person in the group. He did not want to hear any argument that contradicts with his opinion about the boy, he shouted, yelled at those who thought the boy was not guilty. His judgment was discriminative. He referred the boy as trash, animals, drugged up person who do not care about peoples life and kill them without having any proper reason; he is just like other people who grow up in the slum. 2.11 Juror#11- Introvert In contrast to Juror#10, Juror#11 has an introvert personality. He was not noticeable at the beginning of the movie. During the time of voting he raised up his hand with some hesitation after seeing the majority were raising hands to vote as guilty. At first he observed Juror#8, Juror#9 and Juror#5s logic in voting not guilty then he changed his vote and started to share his opinion. He was open towards the facts presented by Juror#8, 9 and 10. Although he was calm all the way but when Juror#7 changed his vote to not guilty without giving any proper reason he burst out in anger seeing that childishness over a serious matter. This also shows that Juror#11 is conscientious. 2.12 Juror#12- Extrovert Lastly, Juror#12 at the beginning tried to interact with other juries; it shows that he is an extrovert. But when the discussion started he did not expressed much, instead he was carried away with his own personal job. His agreeableness level was high. He did not have his own thinking or opinion on the case; he was easily distracted by the two parties (guilty and not guilty) in the discussion. When majority vote for guilty, then he raises his hand. He was unsure about his own decision. This decision making may be affected by his high agreeableness personalities that caused him to listen, or even follow others opinion without own judgment. 3.0Values Actually, values were developed from a belief that people hold in. Hence, value is defined as specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence. Normally, they contain a judgmental element in that they carry an individuals ideas as to what is right, good, or desirable. We realize values are important in this movie because they contain jurors interpretations of right and wrong. We will classify and interpret the values found in each characters of 12 Angry Mens using Rokeach Value Survey which is consists of terminal values and instrumental values. 3.1 Juror#1-Equal Opportunity As we know, foreman should be fairer and stress on equality. Juror#1 is the foreman of the jury. He has terminal value of equality which is equal opportunity for all juries to vote. He is serious about his authoritative role and wants to be as fair as possible to everyone. He offers everyone an equal opportunity to vote and speak out their opinion whether the boy guilty or not guilty. He also has instrumental values of broad-minded. He is open-minded in listening and accepting every jurors opinion. For instance, he accepted the proposal of Juror#8 to have a round of secret vote. His broad-minded values also affected his decision making. He vote for guilty at first, but with the reasonable doubt with all the evidence, he shift to not guilty at last. His decision making was quiet rational and did not shift too often as what Juror#12 did. 3.2 Juror#2-Polite Juror#2 is a quiet man who is easily persuaded by the opinions of others and cannot explain the roots of his opinions. He has instrumental values of polite. He is trying to voice out his own opinion with polite way. His politeness can be seen through the discussion process where he kept one asking question in a polite manner and gain respect from other Jurors. 3.3 Juror#3- Capable, Courageous Now we move to another instrumental value, which are capable and courageous. Juror#3 has instrumental values of capable and courageous. He stands up for his belief that the boy is guilty based on the facts such as the switchblade used as the murder weapon and evidence from the witness. However, his strong belief on the defendant must guilty was also influenced by his bad relationship with his son who hit and left him, which thus lead him to be irrational in analyzing the reasonable doubt for those evidences and decisions made. 3.4 Juror#4-Logical, Broad-Minded Juror#4 has instrumental values of logical and broad-minded. He logically related his decision with the evidences. On the other hand, he is also able to listen to other juries opinion. He was convinced by Juror#9 that the witness across the road may not really see what is happening at the murder place. He tries to support his own decision by further analysis of the facts with logical ways. 3.5 Juror#5-Forgiving, Logical Next, we can find instrumental value of forgiving on Juror#5. Although he got offended when Juror#3 and Juror#10 criticizing him on his background, however he is still willing to forgive them. Witnessing knife fights and normal slum behaviour, he feels obligated to explain an experience that would later help the jurors vote not guilty. The ability to link his experience of knife fights and normal slum behaviour to this case whereby the defendant is also from slum shows that Juror#5 has instrumental value of intelligence in his thinking. 3.6 Juror#6-Respect, Loving Now let us move to Juror#6 who has terminal values of respect and instrumental values of loving. He respects Juror#9 which is the eldest among them. He tries to let Juror#9 has the chance to voice out his opinion. Juror#6 bravely stands up to Juror #3 when he speaks rudely to Juror #9, threatening to hit Juror #3 if he ever speaks to the old man like that again. 3.7 Juror#7-Pleasure, Cheerful Meanwhile, terminal values of pleasure and instrumental values of cheerful are clearly shown on Juror#7. He is a baseball fan. He bought two tickets to watch live baseball game on that particular day. During the break time of the discussion, everyone was tensed with how things going to be as a jury, but he still could talk with others cheerfully. 3.8 Juror#8-Logical, Responsible Juror#8 has instrumental values of logical and responsible. He does not believe the evidence that presented by lawyer. He analyzed evidence by using logic. For instance, he questioned on the old man who claimed himself had taken fifteen seconds from his bedroom to rush to his front door and gotten a look on the murderer. He does not simply make a decision that may destroy the boys life. He feels that as one of the Juror, he has the responsibility to make a right decision. This is clearly shown when he first voted not guilty because he wants further discussion and not to decide the defendants life just within five minutes without any further discussion. Majority were trying to give some pressure to the Juror#8 for his odd decision. But the pressure could not shake off his decision; he stood strong with his own decision which was affected by his values. 3.9 Juror#9-Intellectual, Logical Follow with Juror#9 who has instrumental values of intellectual and logical. Although he is the eldest among them still he paid a lot of attention during the trial and looked into detailed on every witness. He convinced Juror#4 on the reasonable doubt on the woman has deep marks on her nose, which means she is wearing spectacles and might not be able to see clearly on the murder case that happened across the road with train passed by and just got up from bed which is not putting on her spectacles. This shows how he used his intelligence and observance in daily life in this case. 3.10 Juror#10-Courageous Next, Juror#10 has instrumental value of courageous. He is standing up for his belief that with the background of the boy comes from, which is born in a slum, the boy must be guilty. This has become his prejudice which caused him fail to think and decide rationally on whether the boy is guilty or not. Besides that, Juror#10 also has terminal value of self-respect. He holds very high esteem not to be someone from the slums. Juror#10s decision making was affected by his perceptions towards the background of the defendant which occurred from his self-esteem values that want to be differentiated from people of that background. 3.11 Juror#11-Responsible Instrumental value of responsible can be found on Juror#11. He felt the responsibility being juror to give the correct judgment on the defendant and believe in justice. Besides that, Juror#11 also has instrumental value of logical. He is observant with the facts and changed his vote to not guilty due to the doubt on whether the defendant would have reasonably fled the scene and come back three hours later to retrieve his knife. His decision is based on logical thinking about how a normal people might act after committing a murder. 3.12 Juror#12-An Exciting Life Lastly, Juror#12 has terminal value of having an exciting life. He involves actively in social activities and his work. However, this has caused him often distracted during the discussion of the jury. 4.0 Attitude Attitudes are evaluative statements or judgments concerning objects, people, or events. Attitudes give warnings of potential problems and influence behavior. Attitudes have three components which are cognitive (evaluation), affective (feeling), and behavioral (action). In this movie, most of the jurors have a positive attitude that the boy is guilty. They believe that the evidences are solid, which is the cognitive component for their attitude. Following with this, the affective component of their behaviour were set up whereby they feel the boy is guilty. Subsequently, it affected their behaviour component and they voted the boy is guilty. Conversely, Juror#8 has a different attitude compared to other Juries. He thinks there are a lot of reasonable doubts in the evidences yet no one questioned the validity of those evidences in the court. This has become the cognitive component for his negative attitude towards the boy is guilty. He feels that the boy might not be guilty, which is the affective component of his attitude. Because of this, he voted the boy as not guilty and wants to have a discussion with other jurors on the evidences. 5.0 Emotion and Mood After discussing the personality and values depicted by the 12 Angry Men, emotion and moods are two other important variables that affect decision making process. Actually, emotions are intense feelings directed at someone or something while moods are less intense feelings than emotions and often lack a contextual stimulus. In addition, emotions are reactions to a person or an event but moods usually are not directed at a person or an event (Robbins, S.P. Judge, T.A. (2013) Organizational Behavior). In 12 Angry Men movie, decisions making of 12 juries whether that young boy guilty or not guilty are always affected by their emotions and moods. Thus, having a stable emotion is necessary for them to make a rational decision. 5.1 Juror#1- Mood: Neutral to Bad; Emotion: Frustration Juror#1 is the foreman of the jury and he shows his leadership at first and neutral mood. However, he gets frustrated when other jurors questioned his leadership. He wants to be as fair as possible and try to maintain a relaxed and calm mood when discussion is going on. Luckily, he was able to regulate back his emotion to normal state and facilitate the discussion at the mid. 5.2 Juror#2- Mood: Anxious; Emotion: Nervous On the other hand, Juror#2 is a quiet and the most timid guy in the group. Having his first time to deliberate in such jury case made him anxious and fear to voice out his opinion. He was easily persuaded by other jurors due to his lack of self confidence. Besides, he also failed to explain the roots of his opinion that grounded his decision at the beginning. However, his courage to voice out his opinion has been mounting as the discussion goes further. 5.3 Juror#3- Mood: Bad; Emotion: Angry Let us move to the main antagonist of the movie, Juror#3. Juror#3 is a person who quick to lose his temper. His was having a bad mood since the beginning when he complains on the lawyers talked for so long even on such an obvious case. He gets angry when Juror#8 and other members disagree with his opinions, and his anger becomes stronger when other jurors change their vote from guilty to not guilty. He believes that the defendant is absolutely guilty until the very end of the play. His emotion gets affected in this case because he has poor relationship with his own son, which causes him to have biased views. Being in angry emotion and biased views has caused him irrational in making decision on guilty and not guilty for the defendant until the very end of the movie. His decision making was based on his own experience that does not related much to the trial. 5.4 Juror#4- Mood: Neutral; Emotion: Calm We realize that Juror#4 is a logical and well-spoken stockbroker. Being rational while maintaining his calm mood allowed him to have the most stable emotion throughout the discussion and able to discuss and make decisions rationally. For instance, he urges fellow jurors to avoid emotional arguments and engage in rational discussion. When one of the jurors says this is not an exact science, he does not take into account the feelings, the passions and the characters of the people involved in the case. Other than that, most of the jurors mood has been affected and they got frustrated easily as they were staying in a no air-conditioned room in a hot sunny day. Yet, under this hot environment, he is the only juror that does not take his jacket off and always adapt for logical thinking and able to make reasonable decision. 5.5 Juror#5- Mood: Anxious to Neutral; Emotion: Nervous Next, Juror#5 has an anxious mood when expressing his opinion especially in front of the elder members of the group. He is under emotional stress because of having the same background with the boy which is growing up in the slums. This appears one of the main reasons for him voting guilty at first because he does not want compassion to influence his decision. However as the trial goes on he is able to gain more confident to voice out his opinion and sharing his experience on knife fights and normal slum behaviour that convinced other jurors there is reasonable doubt on the evidences. This makes him emotionally more stable and his mood also back to neutral. Juror#5s decision was affected by his emotion whereby at first he passes his chance to give reason why he voted guilty for the trial which maybe feeling of ashamed for having the same background with the defendant that is living in slum, uneducated and bad environmental where knife fighting was just a common phenomena. 5.6 Juror#6- Mood: A little tensed; Emotion: Calm Juror#6 is a regular employee that has high agreeableness to others. He has little tense mood because of everyone in the room is better qualified than him in making decisions and offering explanations and opinions. However he has a stable emotion that enables him to see the good in others. 5.7 Juror#7- Mood: Good to Bad; Emotion: Frustration Juror#7 is the only one that really has no opinion on this case. This can be shown by when he follows others suggestion and changes his vote easily just because he wants to go back home early. One of the sources of emotions and mood which is social activities has influenced his mood throughout the discussion. He felt happy at the beginning as he could go to watch live baseball game. However, his mood turned down and get frustrated when the discussion takes longer. His emotion and decision making was distracted by the baseball game as he wanted to speed things up a bit so he can be out of the jury room as soon as possible to enjoy his baseball game. 5.8 Juror#8- Mood: Neutral to Good; Emotion: Determined and Calm In contrast to Juror#7, Juror#8 stands firm on his decision grounded with his reasonable doubt on the evidences. Juror#8 is a caring man and he feels the responsibility to care about the boys life. Maintaining a stable emotion enables Juror#8 have a logical mind and able to make a rational decision. He has put more thoughts into the case than any other jurors which make him able to prove and explain the situation in different ways to persuade other jurors change their vote. For example, he bought the same knife used as murder weapon that is not ordinary and tried to prove the reasonable doubts on those witnesses such as the old man who drags one foot when he walks because of stroke, able to rush to the front door from his bedroom which is quite distance away in fifteen seconds and managed to look on the murderer. Juror#8 also has high emotional intelligence in this movie that he always shows the right feeling and knows how to control his own emotion even every other juror has voted g uilty but he is the only one to vote not guilty at the first. Besides that, Juror#8 urges others to be patience with the discussion and contemplate the details of the case. 5.9 Juror#9- Mood: Neutral; Emotion: Calm Next, Juror#9 is a wise old man with his great life experience and he has quite a unique way of looking at this case. His calm and relaxed mood allows him to think logically and be a good observer. He is the first one who realizes the woman, who testified that she saw the murder, had deep marks on the side of her nose and it means she wears glasses. This has put on reasonable doubt that the woman who just got out from bed may not wearing glasses, and thus it is likely for her not able to see clearly the murder across the road. He has high positive mood which is alert. For instance, he is the first to openly recognize Juror#10s racist attitude, stating that What this man says is very dangerous. 5.10 Juror#10- Mood: Bad; Emotion: Angry Let us proceed to Juror#10. Juror#10 is the most horrifying character in this movie. He tries to force his opinion of guilty to other jurors and gets angry easily when other jurors opinion is not same with him. He votes guilty and does not even try to hide the fact that he does so because of the boys social background. He has a strong stereotyping attitude and this stopped him to think rationally and voted the boy guilty just because of the boys background. This has lead to other jurors turning their back on him near the end of the movie after his outburst that shows his prejudice on the defendant. 5.11 Juror#11- Mood: Neutral; Emotion: Calm When we come to Juror#11, we know that he is an immigrant watchmaker. He believes in justice and feels he is responsible to make the correct judgment for the case. He tries to keep himself calm and relaxed throughout the discussion. This stable emotion allows him able to look at both sides of the problem. However, Juror#11 lost his temper once when he was horrified by juror#7 who voted not guilty just because want to make the trial ends as soon as possible. 5.12 Juror#12- Mood: Anxious; Emotion: Nervous Eventually, Juror#12 is an arrogant and impatient advertising executive. He has an anxious mood for the discussion to be over so that he can get back to his career and his social life. His decision gets affected by his nervous mood. This can be shown by when he change his vote easily just to follow majority and do not have his own opinion. 6.0 Other Variables That Affects Decision Making Process 6.1 Hot Environment Besides the abovementioned variables like personality, values, attitudes, emotions and moods, external factor do affect the decision making process also. One of the most prominent external factors is the environment for the discussion room. When all the jurors entered the discussion room, they found that the room was hot due to the breakdown of the air-conditioner. As a result, all the jurors just kept on finding ways to make the rooms more ventilated instead of seeking for discussion. So, the morale of all jurors has been lowered down by the hot and non-conducive environment and affects the discussion process. Definitely, they would just hope that the discussion may be ended up quickly and this drives them to make illogical decision. 6.2 Stereotype Next, the shortcut of stereotyping people used by the eleven jurors except Juror #8 in judging the suspected murderer will affect the decision making process too. Juror #3 has related his son with the suspected murder attitude. In fact, the Juror#3 did not get along with the suspected murderer attitude. He said that How kids are nowadays. He mentioned that he had a bad relationship with his son after his son hit him. Following his bad experiences, Juror#3 perceived that all teenagers were rebellious and will attack his own father. So, his stereotyping attitude has affected his decision making process and made him stressing that The boy is guilty. Another prominent stereotyping judgment can be discovered through the accusation of Juror#10 that the boy was deemed to be guilty was due to his family background. He cited that the suspected murders slum background as the evidence for him to kill his father. Undoubtedly, this stereotyping attitude will affect their decision making especiall y Juror#3 and Juror#5 and vote the boy to be guilty. 6.3 Bounded Rationality and positive Intuition Apart from those discussed variables, Juror#8 has exhibited the positive elements in making rational decision. The positive elements are bounded rationality and positive intuition. Juror#8 has constructed simplified models model that extract the essential features from problems without capturing the complexities. For example, Juror#8 has questioned about the validity of the old mans testimonial. Hence, he extracted the essential features that Can the old man who had suffered a stroke and could only walk slowly, gotten to the door to see the suspected murderer ran to the downstairs in fifteen second? in a clear manner. Furthermore, the Juror#8 also has portrayed positive intuition that mentioned that he felt the boy will not kill his father and there is a doubt about the validity of the witnesss testimonial. He once told other Juror You dont believe the boy, then why you believe the women? 6.4 Overconfidence bias However, there are several decision biases and errors happened throughout the hot discussion among those 12 angry Jurors. The first common bias shown by majority of Jurors except 8th Juror is overconfidence bias. This can be evidence through the opening of the scene where majority of the Jurors were complaining and presuming the obvious guilt of the suspected murderer. Most of them were overconfidence that the defendant had definitely killed his father. Besides that, when there was a new doubt arose like switchable knife that was not as unique as the Juror mention, most of them just upset that they were still arguing the facts and cannot go home. Hence, their overconfidence about defendant was the murderer causes them could not have a rational discussion and develop reasonable doubt. Luckily, there was 8th Juror tried to lead the team to the rational path. 6.5 Anchoring Bias Furthermore, we can detect numerals biases rooted in the mind of the Juror#3. Fro

Use of Rhetoric in Jonathan Edwards Sinners in the Hands of an Angry G

On July 8th 1741, Jonathan Edwards preached the sermon â€Å"Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God† in Enfield, Connecticut. Edwards states to his listeners that God does not lack in power, and that people have yet not fallen to destruction because his mercy. God is so forgiving that he gives his people an opportunity to repent and change their ways before it was too late. Edwards urges that the possibility of damnation is immanent. Also that it urgently requires the considerations of the sinner before time runs out. He does not only preach about the ways that make God so omnipotent, but the ways that he is more superior to us. In his sermon, Edwards uses strong, powerful, and influential words to clearly point out his message that we must amend our ways or else destruction invincible. Edwards appeals to the spectators though the various usages of rhetorical devices. This includes diction, imagery, language/tone and syntax. Through the use of these rhetoric devices, Edwardsâ₠¬Ëœs purpose is to remind the speculators that life is given by God and so they must live according to him. This include...

Linguistic imperialism Essay

Linguistic imperialism can be defined as the enforcement or imposition of one language onto another; it tends to be a key tool of the colonialist seeking to mend the ‘backward’ societies that they find, generally to their own purpose. Thus, writers such as Friel and Achebe have sought to rectify the still ever present colonialist perceptions of the west by attacking the use of language in their societies, for example, Hiberno-English in Translations. Furthermore, it is necessary to analyse the form and structure of the primary texts, for instance, how Achebe and Friel both manage to structure their texts in such a way that it gives a distinctly ‘foreign’ aesthetic, whilst still creating a subtly intelligent and critical narrative. Also, it is important to look at the literary techniques and devices that are used within Translations and Things Fall Apart, for example, dramatic irony (e. g. the reference to the potato famine in Translations) or symbols like Mr. Brown in Things Fall Apart, who represent a could-have-been harmonious presence between two vastly different cultures. In addition, it is necessary to contrast and compare the primary texts with secondary texts such as Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s ‘The Language of African Literature’, and analyse how relevant or constructive Things Fall Apart and Translations are in their underlying criticism of linguistic imperialism. Overall, it is a crucial to explore these various threads of investigation to come to an overall conclusion in terms of how Friel and Achebe present the issue of linguistic imperialism and how successful they are. George Steiner, in After Babel, writes that â€Å"Translation exists because men speak different languages† (1998, p. 51). He goes on to question it, by asking â€Å"Why should human beings speak thousands of different, mutually incomprehensible tongues? † (1998, p. 51), that homo sapiens are basically biologically the same; why have we not evolved to speak one common language? Steiner’s study of language and communication concludes that with the death of a language comes the dissolution of cultures and identities: â€Å"Each takes with it a storehouse of consciousness† (1998, p.56). This was of consequential influence to Brian Friel and Translations, notable throughout the play. For instance, the various ways in which Friel portrays translation – the cartographers; Owen’s â€Å"not-completely-correct† translation of Lancey; Maire and Yolland’s romantic tryst and so forth – create the notion that the English language is not compatible with Irish culture. This is an overarching idea that reaches its crescendo with the Donnelly twins, Friel’s representation of the Provision IRA within the play i. e. the violent end of Yolland, inferred by the actions of the Donnelly twins, is an echo of 1980s era conflicts. These conflicts were created by tensions still remaining today, by Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland; the Catholics calling for the reunification of Ireland, and Protestants wishing to remain separated – realistically, these tensions would have not necessarily existed had there been no British colonising of Ireland, and Translations has been identified as echoing Friel’s political interest in the matters. The reader or audience of Translations are bound by Friel to a highly complex idea of translation and the place of language in a culture; similarly, we are made aware of this in Things Fall Apart. One of the most accessible passages that exemplify this goes as follows: â€Å"When they had all gathered the white man began to speak to them. He spoke through an interpreter who was an Ibo man, though his dialect was different and harsh to the ears of Mbanta. Many people laughed at his dialect and the way he used words strangely. Instead of saying ‘myself’ he always said ‘my buttocks’. † (Things Fall Apart, p. 136) Subtly, Achebe feeds the reader linguistic perspective alien to most Western culture – that Africa was not, and is not, a land full of savages who cannot communicate as well as the Europeans, and instead a variety of different tongues that is not necessarily exactly recognisable from one clan to another. In regards to Translations, Friel has been left relatively unscathed by those in Ireland who may have felt abandoned by Friel’s artistic decision to employ Hiberno-English as opposed to contemporary Gaelic, whilst both authors have clearly chosen English as a medium to address linguistic imperialism (using the tool of colonialism against the colonialists). Achebe has been highly criticised for writing in English. Ngugi wa Thiong’o criticised African authors who chose English over their native tongue to write in. He asked â€Å"How did we arrive at this acceptance of ‘the fatalistic logic of the unassailable position of English in our literature’, in our culture, and in our politics?†¦ † (1995, p. 287) Thiong’o goes on to say that as the bullet is to physical subjugation, â€Å"language was the means of spiritual subjugation† (1995, p. 287). To understand Thiong’o’s logic, the reader needs to take into context a passage further on in the essay, which refers to his experiences at a colonial school and the use of his mother tongue, Gikuyu: â€Å"Thus one of the most humiliating experiences was to be caught speaking Gikuyu in the vicinity of the school. The culprit was given corporal punishment – three to five strokes of the cane on bare buttocks – or was made to carry a metal plate around the neck with inscriptions such as I AM STUPID or I AM A DONKEY †¦ † (1995, p. 288) Thiong’o is asserting that the use of English was imposed upon many of the African tribes and with it the enforcement of superiority and supposed civilisation†¦ to use Gikuyu was to be made to feel inferior and stupid, and to speak English fluently would be the height of education achievement. A further statement by Thiong’o states â€Å"Literary education was now determined by the dominant language while also reinforcing that dominance. Orature in Kenyan languages stopped. † (1995, p. 288). The loss of such orature and its replacement by the English written word was heavily destructive, according to Thiong’o – he concludes the essay be acknowledging that human society and culture is formed by the interactions and communication of people, that complex systems of ethics and experience, these systems creating one distinctive society from another. If the means of communication that has developed such a community is, like Tobair Vree in Translations â€Å"something is being eroded† (p. 53), or destroyed, then, much like Steiner, that society is lost. To Thiong’o, Achebe’s use of English over his native tongue is, rather than delicate manipulation for the anti-colonialist purpose, actually conducive in destroying that particular culture forever. However, despite Thiong’o’s clear dissatisfaction at Achebe’s use of the English language as a general point, this point could be considered moot. Early on in the essay, Thiong’o quotes Achebe as saying: â€Å"Is it right that a man should abandon his mother tongue for someone else’s? IT looks like a dreadful betrayal and produces a guilty feeling. But for me there is no other choice. I have been given the language and intend to use it. † (1995, p. 285 citing 1975, p. 62) This is evident in the careful construction and consideration of Things Fall Apart. Achebe has written a novel in which the reader could easily imagine themselves around a blazing fire with an elder of a Nigerian clan, with the story being meticulously recited to them. The rhythm of the novel is manipulated in such a way that it becomes less like an English-written novel and more a native piece of orature. For example, Achebe makes good use of drums in the novel, to create the rhythm of the traditional narrative: â€Å"Just then the distant beating of drums began to reach them†¦ the drums beat the unmistakable wrestling dance – quick, light and gay, and it came floating on the wind. † (Things Fall Apart, p. 41) A further use of language to create an ‘African English’ is the utilisation of proverbs, which play a central part in emphasising the Ibo culture, as â€Å"proverbs are the palm-oil with which words are eaten†. In addition, Achebe ‘peppers’ Things Fall Apart with Ibo words – this digression is an act of defiance to the colonists who felt they could just translate Ibo culture (religion, education and so forth). By this, Achebe means to illustrate the barriers of translation, in that there is no suitable word for, as an example, ogbanje, â€Å"one of those wicked children who, when they died, entered their mother’s womb to be born again†. Similarly, Achebe’s conquest to turn the Colonialist’s language back in on itself, Achebe wrote an essay called ‘An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness’. Achebe analyses Western views of Africa (such as those of â€Å"that erudite British Historian Regius Professor of Oxford, Hugh Trevor Roper† (Achebe, 1961)) in stinging rhetoric which delivers the idea of that prolific early ‘anti-colonialist’ novelists like Conrad were, maybe unwittingly, racist in themselves. Achebe writes: â€Å"Conrad was born in 1857†¦ it was certainly not his fault that he lived†¦ [in a] time when the reputation of the black man was at a particularly low level. But†¦ there remains still in Conrad’s attitude a residue of antipathy to black people†¦ Certainly, Conrad had a problem with niggers. His inordinate love of that word itself should be of interest to psychoanalysts. Sometimes his fixation on blackness is equally interesting as when he gives us this brief description [of a black person]: A black figure stood up, strong long black legs, waving long black arms†¦ as though we might expect them to†¦ wave white arms! † (Achebe, 1961) In this short except, it is noticeable how Achebe associates Conrad’s conduplicatio of ‘black’ as sinister, and potentially in itself, a form of linguistic imperialism – in this, it is the fact that the word black (and nigger) has previously been held to have negative connotations or was created for a negative purpose, but both create a â€Å"‘reputation of the black man†¦ at a particularly low level† (Achebe, 1961). Achebe also goes on to say that these psychoanalysts who have already written at length about Conrad fail to recognise his attitude to black people, even in discussion over anti-Semitic values, â€Å"which only leads one to surmise that Western psychoanalysts must regard the kind of racism displayed by Conrad as absolutely normal† (Achebe, 1961) and that this same book of â€Å"vulgar fashion prejudices insults from which a section of mankind has suffered untold agonies† (Achebe, 1961) has been â€Å"described by a serious scholar as ‘among the half dozen greatest short novels in the English language† (Achebe, 1961). From this, the audience of this essay can understand that Achebe, in as short a summary as possible, suggests that one of the most famous – or in this case infamous – novellas to be written on the subject of Africa by a European stranger epitomises how the English language has been used as Thiong’o’s subjugation of the soul – even if Conrad’s intentions in writing it were not consciously racist, in trying to purvey a certain message he colonised the African peoples by associating them with pejoratives and otherwise negative descriptors. Friel and Achebe are both influential authors for similar reasons; they attack subversive, modern perceptions of ‘lost’ worlds that have in recent years movements like African National Congress in South Africa and the IRA in Ireland sought to revert nation-states to their ‘natural’, pre-colonial state. In this, they have both similar and not so similar approaches to literature, and have incorporated techniques to manipulate ideas incorporated in their book. For example, both authors make use of particular styles of writing to mimic the native language whilst writing in the colonial language (i.  e. English). In Friel’s case, this is Hiberno-English, which is a form of Irish that retains its Gaelic lexical structure whilst being spoken in English, for instance, when Doalty says to Manus â€Å"Hi, Manus, there’s two bucks down the road there asking for you† (Translations, p. 46) – in strict grammatical terms, Doalty’s syntax does not make sense in proper English, demonstrating inherent intimacy and deitis. Friel is applying the idea of Continual Presence of Gaelic to the English language. This application is also a theatrical device – or conceit – whereby Hugh is usually portrayed with an English accent, as he does not use Hiberno-English. Similarly, Achebe put simply, â€Å"both in vocabulary and sentence structure, he opts for the straightforward instead of the obtuse† (Easthope, 1988) and in doing so imitates traditional Ibo storytelling. Another literary device used by Friel and Achebe in their respective texts is their use of symbolism. In Things Fall Apart, Achebe uses locusts to symbolise the invading colonialists: â€Å"And then the locusts came†¦ the elders said locusts came once in a generation, reappeared every year for seven years and then disappeared for another lifetime. They went back to their caves in a distant land, where they were guarded by a race of stunted men. † (Things Fall Apart, p. 51) The above quote inferences that the locusts are the colonialists, by Achebe carefully alluding to the ‘race of stunted men’ that lives in a ‘distant land’. Achebe goes on: â€Å"Then quite suddenly a shadow fell on the world†¦ At first, a fairly small swarm came. They were harbingers sent to survey the land. And then appeared on the horizon a slowly moving mass like a boundless sheet of black cloud drifting towards Umuofia. † (Things Fall Apart, p. 52) In this, Achebe’s symbolism is clear – those like Mr. Brown and initial missionaries were assigned only to convert those ‘African savages’ into morally correct Christians, and to some extent allowed their cultures to live as congruently as possible. It is only with the materialisation of the District Commissioner who declares the Ibo people to be â€Å"in the dominion of our queen, the most powerful ruler in the world† that this comes to a head. Achebe foreshadows the ‘jumping ship’ of characters like Nwoye, by referencing the consumption of the locusts – such members of the community have consumed the colonialist culture, in all its forms, including language. Unlike Achebe’s extended metaphor of the locusts, Friel uses a passing, but nonetheless poignant, subtle symbolic reference to the potato famine. Bridget proclaims â€Å"†They say that’s the way it snakes in, don’t they? First they smell; and then one morning the stalks are all black and limp† (Translations, p. 18) with Maire exclaiming: â€Å"Sweet smell! Sweet smell! Every year at this time somebody comes back with stories of the sweet smell. Sweet God, did the potatoes ever fail in Baile Beag?†¦ There was never a blight here†¦ but we’re all sniffing about for†¦ a disaster. † (Translations, p. 18) This is symbolic of the rotting Irish culture, and failing language as contextually the potato was the staple foodstuff. The potato famine was not only symbolic, but also highly ironic – when Maire says â€Å"did the potatoes ever fail in Baile Beag? † the audience knows fully well that they would. This device, more specifically referred to as ‘dramatic irony’, is used often by Friel in Translations, and serves to foreshadow eventual destruction too. Another use of it is Hugh’s recital of The Aeneid: â€Å"†¦ Such was – such was the course – such was the course ordained – ordained by fate †¦ What the hell’s wrong with me? Sure I know it back ways, I’ll begin again. Urbs antiqua fuit†¦ † (Translations, pp. 90-91) This is doubly ironic, as on the one hand, Hugh cannot seem to fully remember it – Latin and Greek are often referenced throughout the play by Jimmy Jack and Hugh, both of them themselves being dead languages and cultures. Perhaps in further reference to After Babel by George Steiner, the fact that Hugh cannot remember it is a reflection of Gaelic – even intelligent scholars like him will eventually lose a tongue they have worked so hard to protect. A further projection of irony in Hugh’s recital is the content of Virgil’s The Aeneid. The Aeneid is a parallel between the destruction of Carthage, a city on the North African coast, by the Romans and the destruction of Baile Beag by the English. What is highly ironic about The Aeneid, and almost makes this piece of dramatic irony self-parodying, is that The Aeneid was written in the language of those that destroyed Carthage (the Romans). Again, irony is quite prevalent in Things Fall Apart with the most pertinent example falling, like Translations, at the end of the novel. This is the District Commissioner’s reaction to Okonkwo’s suicide: â€Å"Everyday brought him new material. The story of this man who had killed a messenger and hanged himself would make interesting reading. One could almost write a whole chapter on him. Perhaps not a whole chapter but a reasonable paragraph, at any rate. † (Things Fall Apart, p. 197) This is ironic because after the lengthy and tumultuous tale of Okonkwo and his struggles to not be like his father, the complex hierarchy of elders and the intricacy of Okonkwo and his struggles to not be like his father, the complex hierarchy of elders and the intricacy of their traditions and religion, the District Commissioner feels it can only ‘almost’ be written about in one chapter, and designates to only a paragraph. This is highly representative of the failure of the white man to ‘translate’ the Ibo culture and ability into being a highly complex culture, and instead treats the colonisation of the Ibo people as â€Å"The Pacification of the Primitive Tribes of the Lower Niger† (Things Fall Apart, p. 197). In conclusion, both Achebe and Friel carefully construct stories using literary devices that serve to recreate their personal heritage of a realistic and pitiful community who fall victim to unrepentant imperialism. In this, they have been able to repudiate colonial superiority in particular in regards to language and colonial ideas of ‘progression’. Whilst both portray three dimensional characters in that they are atomistic – for example, in Translations, Hugh’s view of the English is different to Owen’s which is in turn separate from Manus’s – and provides a highly explorative analysis of linguistic imperialism and its effect on individuals and the community. To summarise, all of the text referred to in this essay, in their own ways, are deeply critical of the effects of linguistic imperialism, particularly in the context of colonialism and so-called ‘progression’.

Attitudes toward Roman State Religion - 1178 Words

Attitudes toward Roman State Religion and Christianity within the Roman Empire up to 392 AD On observation of the many ideologies that have gathered followers and made their mark in Ancient Rome, two draw attention as having been particularly prominent in their influence of the state and the attitudes they had gathered towards themselves within the Roman Empire- these being the Roman state religion and Christianity. These two ideologies contrast in their ideas, structure and the time period in which they reached their height in popularity and persecution. The polytheistic and ritualistic Roman state religion was widely in practice within the Roman Empire until its major decline in 4th century AD, during which it was supplanted by Christianity, a monotheistic ideology with more emphasis on individual faith and morality, as Rome’s official religion, the formal declaration of this being the Edict of Thessalonica issued on 27 February 380AD. The general attentive desire to upkeep the traditions of the state religion declined with increasing dominance of Christianity whic h during the first four centuries Anno Domini was in turn tolerated, persecuted, accepted and revered. The attitudes toward both of these ideologies (in Rome before 392 AD) can be better understood with the exploration of the reasons behind them and the changes that they undergo. The fundamental beliefs and principles of Roman state religion The Roman society was non secular society in which religion wasShow MoreRelatedEssay about Gender Issues in Religion1633 Words   |  7 PagesGender Issues in Religion Amongst the world religions are many different attitudes towards gender issues and sexuality. A hundred years ago, or even a lot less, these different perspectives did not exist, as they were often considered unimportant, as King noted until recently little attention has been paid to gender differences and their impact on religious teaching and practice.[1] With some religions, their scriptures are considered to be infallible and thereforeRead MoreThe Differences Between The And Roman Society1350 Words   |  6 Pagesunlike how the United States is set up today with the church and state being separate from each other, Roman religion was tied together with the state and heavily influenced the overall well-being of Rome. In Ancient Rome, rituals and prayers played a tremendous role in society. As stated in Jo-Ann Shelton’s book, As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History, â€Å"The religion protected the state, and the state protected the religion. The two were interwoven, and religion was an intrinsic partRead MoreThe Political, Social and Religious Situation of Palestine During the First Century AD965 Words   |  4 Pagestrouble. This was mainly because of the Roman invasion, and because they still occupied the land. This meant that there became definite different groups of people, who had different beliefs and attitudes towards one another. Overall, there were five different groups of people, who had differences between themselves. I shall explain the five groups and state their beliefs and attitudes, which led to trouble. The first group is the Romans. They had conquered many lands before Read MoreThe Immigration Act Of 1882900 Words   |  4 PagesWith the founding of the United States government, many Americans have expressed a variety of attitudes towards those who differ from the majority culture. Furthermore, as can be seen throughout America s history, one can pull many example of how Americans have acted towards the other. For instance, many Americans began to fear that the immigrants had been coming faster than they could become good Americans and be made part of American life which provides a way of seeing how Americans feltRead MoreNature Of Religion Essay1254 Words   |  6 PagesReligion is defined into three main parts: 1. beliefs and worship: peoples beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life, 2. System: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to th e divine and 3. Personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by. Each human being has their own view on religion and this is seen throughoutRead MorePaul Of Tarsus : A Christian Perspective Essay1149 Words   |  5 Pagesa universal religion. Because of Paul, Christianity wasn t limited to Judaism, but became a Greco-Roman religion, open to all. He made Jesus divine, born of a Virgin, descended from the House of David, laid the basis for Original Sin, redefined the definition of chosen people to mean those who accept Jesus as Savior and put forth the idea of transubstantiation. Note that the Gospels were written after Paul s conversion and his own writings. It was important that Paul was a Roman citizen; heRead MoreEinhard s The Life Of Charlemagne878 Words   |  4 Pagesrule, the Frankish kingdom experiences an extensive period of prosperity and growth, especially in intellectually related areas since Charlemagne himself is a well-known patron of the arts (#). Hence, Charlemagne is the ruler often credited for the â€Å"Roman revival† across Mediaeval Europe. In order to ensure that Charlemagne’s glorious reign will leave its mark in history, all of Charlemagne’s works and accomplishments are accounted for Einhard’s book. As expressed in the preface of the book, Einhard’sRead MoreAncient Greece And Rome During The World851 Words   |  4 Pagesother hand, Rome was influenced by the Greek and derived the alphabet, many of their religious beliefs, and much of their art (Cole and Symes, 147). Ancient Greece and Rome were influenced by the Ancient Near East sedentary societies through art, religion, an d architecture. Greece was the first society that was male dominated . Also, sexuality was a part of everyday life for Greeks. If home owners did not offer hospitality to certain groups of people, then they would be sentenced to death (GarciaRead MoreThe Rise Of The Century King Cyrus And Emperor Constantine1305 Words   |  6 PagesEither way Cyrus and Constantine are two central figures in Judaism and Christianity, two of the world’s major organized religions. Cyrus and Constantine took over many lands and built their huge empires on a religious foundation through their autonomous military, economic policies and religious fanaticisms. King Cyrus of the Persian Empire and Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire seized control over neighboring cities with their military strength and later introduce their new religious policiesRead MoreThe Rise Of The Century King Cyrus And Emperor Constantine1302 Words   |  6 PagesEither way Cyrus and Constantine are two central figures in Judaism and Christianity, two of the world’s major organized religions. Cyrus and Constantine took over many lands and built their huge empires on a religious foundation through their autonomous military, economic policies and religious fanaticisms. King Cyrus of the Persian Empire and Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire seized control over neighboring cities with their military strength and later introduce their new religious policies