A Stranger to Marxs Estranged Labor Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

A Stranger to Marxs Estranged Labor - Essay Example Karl Marx's Theory of Alienation gives us an idea about the dehumanizing effects of capitalism that affects the worker in the society. Marx's idea of worker alienation pertains to the worker being deprived of all his fundamental human qualities as a result of the production process.As the society develops, people become alienated and estranged from his work, his being, and his society. In his essay â€Å"Estranged Labor† from the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, Marx saw how the whole society must falls apart into two classes — property owners and propertyless workers. As a writer and journalist struggling to make a living, his observations on Germany’s poor and oppressive condition greatly influenced his writing ideas (Wheen, 2001). Marx saw how rich factory owners have set antagonistic conditions towards workers who are subjected to a mechanized process of production. He argues that in contrast to the pre-capitalist period wherein the worker owns the means and ways of production, the workers in capitalist societies have no control over the entire production process. As a result, Marx observed that â€Å"the object which labor produces confronts as something alien† because the product does not belong to the worker anymore. This paper aims to examine the capitalist society’s alienation of the worker and how our modern society alienates the worker from his product, its labor process, from his fellow workers and eventually from himself. By looking at the four aspects of alienation, I will be able to examine and apply his ideas in relation to my work. In this way, I will be able to verify the truthfulness of his ideas in my own experiences at the workplace. Estranged Labor: The Wordplay The word â€Å"estranged† is peculiar. It’s from a late 15th century old French word estranger which means â€Å"to treat as a stranger† or extraneus in Latin (Barnhart, 1988). Nowadays however, the word has tak en a different form to mean from â€Å"being removed from customary environment or associations† to a more interesting definition â€Å"to arouse especially mutual enmity or indifference in where there had formerly been love, affection, or friendliness† (Mirriam-Webster, 2011). It is this later form that Marx uses in his theories, and what he thinks will eventually lead to the uprising of the workers. From Small Shop Owners to Factory Workers The idea about the worker being alienated from the product, the process, his fellow workers and eventually from himself is understandable. In pre-capitalist society a worker would start his day by producing his own goods at his shop. It could be a weapon, a shoe, a tool or a simple an agricultural commodity. He would set out in his own speed and choice of production process. He would be able to change his production method or style as he communicated with his buyers. He would choose a payment to satisfy his own simple lifestyle an d to make sure that he had enough money to function in society. If he needed more money he might improve his products, perhaps develop new designs or qualities to enhance the function of his product. He would always be in close cooperation with the people around him and the society as he is greatly dependent upon them for the growth and development of his business. The kind of society I just described differs a great deal from the society we live in nowadays. Modern workers are not a part of the development process of the products they make. Usually, people produce things now in factories where they perform repetitive and closely monitored labor tasks by their managers and employers. This makes the entire process of work â€Å"impersonal† or â€Å"alien† to the worker. Worse, they are most often paid a low salary that does not reflect what they produce, but manages the capitalist to make a hefty profit. There would most often be fierce competition among fellow workers to get bonuses or a less meaningless job function. From this comparison over the state of workers in

Litmus Milk Procedural Essay Example for Free

Litmus Milk Procedural Essay Litmus milk is a complex medium that can potentially distinguish many species of bacteria. Litmus milk has several components that can be metabolized: lactose (milk sugar); casein (milk protein); and litmus (a pH indicator). If lactose is fermented, the solution should turn pink. If gas is produced during fermentation, you may be able to see bubbles or cracks in the milky medium. If lactose is not fermented and proteins are metabolized instead, the solution will become alkaline and turn blue in color. If casein is digested, the milk will coagulate to form a curd (a solid). Casein may be metabolized all the way down to individual amino acids. This process, called peptonization, results in a clear (not milky) liquid that is usually brown in color. Finally, the litmus may be reduced and become colorless. The culture will then look milk white. Materials: 1. Litmus Milk Broth 2. Bunsen Burner 3. Inoculation Loop 4. Nutrient slant 5. Goggles 6. Lab Coat 7. Incubator Procedure: 1. Get an Inoculation loop and sterilize it using the Bunsen burner. 2. Take bacteria from your nutrient slant on inoculation loop 3. Inoculate a litmus milk tube with the bacteria. 4. Incubate for 72 hours; observe results every 24 hours for 3 days.

Police Corruption Policing

Police Corruption Policing ‘Getting results in policing is more important than how they are achieved. Discuss this statement with reference to the notion of police ethics. Ethics is essential to policing as ethical policing develops and sustains trust between the police and the public it serves. Police corruption, noble cause corruption, Dirty Harry dilemma, Sykes and Matza (1957) Techniques of Neutralization theory, ethical egoism, and ‘Act v Rule utilitarianism are all specific ways of exploring unethical police behaviour being diverted from ethical behaviour, due to ethical laws protecting criminals ‘human rights. Thus begs the question, is gaining results in policing more important than how they are achieved? When the question is posed ‘can we be ethical? for the large majority of us, the answer is perfectly clear. However, with regards to the policing system it is a complicated dilemma that is yet to be properly controlled and prevented. Ethics is vital to policing as this ethical quality not only affects the police officer in question but also the police organisation as a whole. Ethics is not only concerned with the individual police officer but as well as the policies and laws that are enforced to protect everyones basic human rights. Police corruption is one form of unethical behaviour that is due to the authority and power placed and trusted upon the police officer. Power corrupts, and so with this perceptive view, police corruption comes in many stages of development. Kant describes police corruption as actions that â€Å"exploit the powers of law enforcements in return for considerations of private-regarding benefit that violate formal standards governing his or her conduct† (Kleinig, 1996: pg. 38). Police corruption consists of a chain of events that starts from an innocent stage where police officers are sometimes given things for free by the public due to their official status. This process consists of three hypothesis, such as; the society at large explanation, the structural explanation; and finally the ‘rotten-apple explanation (Pollock, 2006). The society-at-large explanation is concerned with the fact that police officers start to expect things to be free, once experiencing small-pay offs and bribes from the public, which leads to more serious crimes known as the structural explanation. This finally leads to the ‘rotten-apple explanation where the officer concerned is purely of dark character morally. One known form o f corruption is ‘noble cause corruption. ‘Noble Cause Corruption (Klockars, 1985), is an act on behalf of the police officer, who is committing a illegal and most certainly unethical crime, on good intentions, to justifiably reach an end result that is noble. For actions that are done for the sake of good are, nevertheless, morally wrong actions. The police officer(s) in question are only acting for the sake of what they ‘believe is morally right, but in fact it is not morally right; their belief is a false belief. For example, suppose a police officer forms a corrupt relationship with a suspected criminal and develops criminal acts to create a portfolio of evidence to convict the criminal. How ethical would this be, despite gaining positive results in policing? Noble cause corruption is strongly related to the ‘Dirty Harry phenomena and so an explanation of this phenomenon is due. The Dirty Harry Problem (Klockars, 1980) is based upon the notion that certain individuals of the police force turn to ‘dirty means of convicting a suspected criminal. Police officers who employ such ‘dirty means think that, by doing this, they achieve three things at the same time. The officer believes that what he/she is doing is morally right; their actions are lawful; and that the wider community will support such heroic behaviour (Thomson, 1999). The movie titled ‘Dirty Harry (Siegel, 1971) involved a fictional character named Inspector Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) who pursued a criminal named ‘Scorpio who kidnapped a 14 year old girl and demanded a $200, 000 ransom to release the girl who was buried with just enough air to last a few hours. Eventually Harry apprehends and tortures Scorpio into telling the location of the girl and gaining a forced confession from the suspect. An unethical procedure, but none the less, gaining ‘results (Siegel, 1971).Dirty harry was purposely given this title to the character, harry Callahan, because of the fact that he employs ‘dirty means of gaining positive results and infringing upon the criminals ‘human rights. ‘Dirty Harry, at the end of the film, took his badge and threw it into the river. This strongly suggested that he has lost faith in the effectiveness of the policing system and thus indicating his resignation (Siegel, 1971). When gaining positive results in policing, it can sometimes be in direct conflict with not following ethical boundaries, thus, being ethical is a rule that appears, according to the ‘Dirty Harry movie plot, to be in the favour of the criminal, technically putting the police officer at a disadvantage due to ‘criminal rights being made available to them. According to Sykes and Matzas ‘Techniques of Neutralization theory, unethical police officers justify their behaviour in one of five methods. Skyes and Matzas (1957) proposed the ‘Techniques of Neutralisation theory which demonstrates five basic methods of justifying deviant behaviour from the delinquent individual. The theory is relevant to police ethics as well as the fact that gaining results within the police service can never exceed the ethics of policing itself due to morality and basic human rights for which the police was based and built upon. ‘Techniques of neutralisation theory explains how lawbreakers are able to protect themselves from feeling of guilt and negative self-image by justifying their conduct. The five methods are: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, condemnation of condemners, and appealing to higher loyalties. Denial of responsibility is concerned with how, within the context of the police work, violence may be regarded as an appropriate and necessary reaction to defiant citizens. Denial of responsibility is established when the police officer in question believes that, where excessive force is used, he/she was provoked by the citizen and therefore ‘ethically rationalised his/her behaviour. This shifts responsibility for the use of force away from the officer to the citizen (Albanese, 2006). Denial of injury covers such areas as stealing and violating constitutional rights. Stealing from suspects for personal gain with the threat of blackmail if ever the suspect reported the officer to the police notes the power a police officer possess, given the position of the suspects situation. Kant suggests that â€Å"Whoever tells a lie, however well intended he might be, must answer for the consequences, however unforeseeable they were, and pay the penalty for them† (Klockars, 1996: pg. 79). Kant describes a perfect example that no matter what the situation may be, telling a lie is unacceptable. Fabrication of evidence is an excellent example as although it may help seal a conviction of a major known criminal, is none-the-less a false conviction. This brings ‘Kantian ethics into consideration. Kant believed that the term motive is the most important variable when considering what is ethical and what is not. To be more exact, motives can be defined by acting in a sense of duty towards others. For example, helping a person out of pity or to promote ones self in face of others is not a ethical, moral action, but out of remorse and unethical means. When considering a complex situation, such as a police officer protecting a witness from murder, what does one do? Such an example goes against Kants beliefs on moral, ethical values. Denial of victim is concerned with those who run from police, use illegal drugs, or defy authority are ‘threats predetermined as dangerous and are in need of ‘punishment. This perception gives the notion of the police being the ‘saviour of all deviant acts and that they are justifiable in the eyes of the law and that these aforementioned acts must be punished to sustain control and authority through the wider community and the state as a whole. Condemnation of the condemners lies with the notion that the problem lies not with the officers motives or behaviour but with the rules, motives, and perception of those who would control and judge them. The police argue that not only do they fight criminality but also have to do battle with public criticism, judges who are too lenient, citizen lawsuits and citizen complaints against the police system. This gives a ‘loophole for criminals which makes police work more difficult. With such added hurdles, condemnation of the condemners seem rational and logical from the police officers perspective. Appealing to higher loyalties is concerned with the fact that police officers will always protect ‘their own against any case of accusations or complaints against a police officer. However, protecting another officer even when this involves unethical and illegal conduct is expected and regarded as noble as it demonstrates loyalty and solidarity. ‘Power corrupts, and so with this ‘police power, the officer will use this power to appeal to higher loyalties for their own personal gain. Personal gain is a one of many attributes of human qualities to achieve our goals in whatever means necessary. Such natural behaviour is assessed by ‘ethical egoism which critically examines our own hunger for wants and desires. Ethical Egoism (Neyround, 2001) is a theory of human nature that states that we all have a strong desire for furthering our wants and desires. By nature, we are motivated to pursue our own wants and desires and, therefore, should act in accordance with our nature by following them (Neyround, 2001). Despite living in a civilised world, living according to the laws of the ‘system, inevitable human nature, it seems, takes a hold of our behaviour when presented with opportunities to further our desires. We all naturally possess wants and needs, however, the morally relevant question to consider (with regards to unethical policing) is when, where, and to what extents are we justified in pursuing them? The claim being made by ethical egoism is not simply that we have wants and needs; rather, it is that we are ‘morally obligated to pursue them on all occasions. Due to individual egoism, it would appear that furthering ones personal desires seems to be the corruption of human nature; that we are all out for ourselves on a majority. If ethical egoism theory is correct in its perception of humans desire for pursuing our own interests then surely police corruption is on a course of eternal reoccurrences of continuous self-indulgent behaviour, placed in a unrealistic police system to resist the temptation of abusing ones position. A major critique of ethical egoism is that it does not provide a solution for conflicts that arise between competing self-interested individuals. Simply stated, this criticism suggests that our happiness and aspirations often comes into conflict with other individuals (Neyround, 2001). Further-more, this morality should establish rules of conduct that enables the peaceful and harmonious resolution of conflict. However, ethical egoism provides no such rules on principles. Instead, it understands life to consist of a never-ending series of conflicts on which each of us struggle to ‘come out on top. By the nature of police officers everyday work, police officers are routinely placed in situations where personal advantages can easily be furthered through unethical and illegal means. ‘Act versus Rule Utilitarianism (Quinton, 2003) demonstrates an argument of why police officers break the law. Act utilitarianism states and argues that ‘ethical laws are first decide whether public action would be taken if ever they disagreed with the laws were to be enforced upon the public. This is then, in turn, is further decided whether the law generates the most happiness for the public. However, critics of this theory argue that the minority, whether groups or individuals, would then be treated unfairly and biased upon, thus, not an ethical method to follow. This coincides with the notion of corrupt police officers fabricating evidence to convict an innocent civilian. It may please the majority of the population if this civilian was known for criminal acts in the past and present but it doesnt justify the action to wrongly convict an innocent. ‘Rule Utilitarianism (Quinton, 2003), on the other hand, determines whether a rule should be followed. ‘Rule Utilitarianism argues that if a rule (law) pleases the majority of the population, then, it is in the publics interest to follow this ‘rule, despite the objectionable minority. Capital punishment was once a rule followed by UK citizens as it resulted in the happiness of the majority with regards to killing extreme deviant individuals, even if an innocent had their life taken by mistake, as this overall pleased the population despite the ‘odd innocent loss of life. Critics argue that this reduces rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism and the rules become meaningless (Quinton, 2003). From such examples, and as an ethical based theory overall, utilitarianism is not a perfect system, thus, flawed. Ethics will either make or break an officer and the decision they make will either strengthen or weaken their ethical values. Police corruption, whether for noble or deviant reasons, weakens the officers moral values and only further leads to deviant temptation. However, temptation and desire appears to be of humans natural instinct to come out top and a means of furthering ones edge over another. Ethics can very much go against the officer inclined to solve a case, such as the Dirty Harry dilemma, such as the criminals basic human rights (although non-deserving) benefits only the offender and develops a loop hole for the offender to escape from justice. Police officers can be taught ethics to a certain degree, but it is the officers own personal benefit to resist the urge of infringing upon criminals rights and also taking an advantage of ones position. This loop hole will promote a real dilemma for future policing and, thus, ethics is likely to play a prominent role in policing in the 21st century. (2124 words)

The Unprincipled Family :: essays research papers

The Unprincipled Family Fredrick Per8 Interrelated arts   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The dangerous relationship of Claudius, the king, and Hamlet, the king’s nephew and stepson, contain two elements that are pervasive enough to categorize it as such. Treachery and paranoia are those traits.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Treachery is one of the basic unprinciples of the relationship, as is shown in the scene of the fencing match and the planning that goes around it. In a scene that relates to the planning of the match itself, the king and Laertes, a man whose family is dead because of Hamlet, have plotted the death of Hamlet through various things. All of which are to happen to Hamlet in the course of the match: King.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"†¦And wager on your heads. He, being remiss, Most generous, and free from all contriving, Will not peruse the foils, so that with ease, Or with a little shuffling, you may choose A sword unbated, and, in a pass of practice, Requite him for your father. Laertes.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I will do’t And for that purpose I’ll anoint my sword. I bought an unction of a mountebank, So mortal that, but dip a knife in it, Where it draws blood, no cataplasm so rare, Collected from all simples that have virtue Under the moon, can save the thing from death That is but scratched withal. I’ll tough my point With this contagion, that, if I gall him slightly, It may be death.†(IV, vii, 134-148) So in fact, within this quote there are two foul plans, the use of an ‘unbated ’ foil, which is more than technically cheating in a fencing match, but then, adding insult, the use of a poison tipped foil. With the use of ‘contagion’ and the ‘unbated’ foil, Claudius and Laertes are making sure that they win. This is still not enough for them, however they move on to another backup scheme to win: a poisoned chalice: King.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"†¦When in your motion you are hot and dry- As make your bouts more violent to that end- And that he calls for a drink, I’ll have prepared him A chalice for the nonce, whereon but sipping, Our purpose may hold there. -†¦Ã¢â‚¬ (IV, vii, 157-162)   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Claudius introduces a poisoned chalice, which, as the third option, or in better terms, the third method is used to kill Hamlet. After being stabbed by Hamlet, Laertes, in his final breaths pronounces the treachery of the king: Laertes.  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã¢â‚¬Å"†¦The treacherous instrument is in thy hand, Unbated and envenomed. The foul practice Hath turned itself on me. Lo, here I lie, Never to rise again. Thy mother’s poisoned I can do no more. The King, the King’s to blame.

Explore the theme of Duality in ‘The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ Essay

First published in 1886, ‘The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ was an immediate success and one of author Robert Louis Stevenson’s bestselling novels. It is a classic example of Gothic fiction and even though it may be seen as just a horror story, with accounts of violent murders and a disturbing, scientific experiment gone wrong, the book also explains the suppression of the Victorian society. Furthermore, Stevenson brought out further ideas of human psychology during the Victorian times, as the story explores the theme of duality in human nature; the idea that every person has two sides to themselves – a nicer, kind side which can also be seen as ‘artificial’ as it is displayed in social situations, whereas the sinister, darker side of man is unsuspected and hidden. This will be my main focus in the essay, analysing how Stevenson uses this theme of dual nature in his novel. ‘The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ has another unusual twist because, after all the horrendous acts that have been committed and the unpredictable behaviour of the characters, it is only in the last chapter that the plot and the true dual nature of Henry Jekyll are revealed to the reader, through a letter that Jekyll leaves. It is in this letter that he describes in detail his theory of good and evil in one body, his scientific interests and what made him want to create such a potion that could separate his personality. Jekyll starts with an explanation of his family background and tells us how he was born to a â€Å"large fortune, endowed besides with excellent parts† showing that he had the best start in life and, even from an early age, it was clear that he had every chance of being successful in the future. This leads to the expectations of him, coming from a wealthy family with a high status in the Victorian times – Jekyll had to do what was expected of him and become a doctor or a lawyer, which he did achieve. He has all the money, respect and status and from the outside, Jekyll seems to have the perfect Victorian gentleman’s lifestyle. He lives up to this perfect life, putting on a show of having an honest nature, and maintaining good manners and respectable behaviour in public – â€Å"†¦he was now no less distinguished for religion. He was busy, he was much in the open air, he did good.† However Jekyll lives a double life, there’s more to him than the side that he displays in public. As much as he wants to be a good person and keep up his appearance, Jekyll finds it difficult to cover up his sinful side, where he feels the needs to commit bad deeds such as visiting prostitutes and going out drinking. It doesn’t clearly state what exactly it is that Jekyll wants, so it is left to the reader’s imagination. Even though it might not seem as bad to us in today’s society to drink and have sexual urges, it came across as ‘taboo’ in the Victorian times so we assume that it was in the immoral side of Jekyll’s nature to go round getting drunk and having sex. Furthermore if you had a higher status, it would be required of you to suppress these feelings so you wouldn’t be shunned upon for acting on your desires. Unfortunately it becomes more and more challenging each day for Jekyll to go on living with the two different sides within him, he â€Å"conceals his pleasures† for the reason that the position he has earned in society and his reputation, depend on it. Jekyll learns that â€Å"man is not truly one, but truly two†. Based on this theory, Jekyll researches and develops a potion that could allow him to try and split the two parts of him, so he can have two separate identities; one with a good nature and the other where he can give in to his darker desires without facing the consequences. After finally finding the right chemicals and substances, Jekyll puts together the potion and takes a sip, aware that he could be risking his life. As soon as he has taken the potion he begins to experience agonizing pains, the symptoms of which include â€Å"a grinding in the bones and deadly nausea†. However, all these pains disappear after a while and Jekyll starts to feel new, strange feelings he hasn’t felt before which he finds â€Å"incredibly sweet†. He sees â€Å"disordered sensual images† in his head and he instantly feels younger, stronger and happier. It seems as if, in a way, Jekyll has created a body to go with and represent his hidden personality and with just a gulp of the potion he has the power to transform himself into this other person, Mr Edward Hyde, whenever he wants. He realises that he now has an â€Å"unknown but not an innocent freedom of the soul† and so he knows straight away that he can let out all the feelings he has k ept repressed for so long, that he can carry out the acts he has always desired, and commit sins without feeling that he guilt that he would have, as Jekyll. At first it seems as if the discovery of this potion was to Jekyll’s advantage; now he has another identity which allows him to do everything he has dreamed of doing, without paying the consequences. However Jekyll kept his darker side restrained for such a long period of time, and now that he can release himself through another body, the feelings that were repressed are now so strong that they become violent and lead to him causing harm to the society. Edward Hyde only appears briefly throughout the novel, and is first introduced through one of the other characters, Mr Enfield, telling the story of how he witnessed Hyde carelessly trampling all over a young for no apparent reason, late at night; this is what makes Hyde automatically come across as evil from the beginning of the story, to the readers. Robert Louis Stevenson also leaves what it is that Hyde gets up to, to the readers imagination too, but Hyde’s major appearance in the novel is when he brutally kills an old man known as Sir Danvers Carew (the local MP) using a stick and like the trampling of the young girl incident, without a motive. As Sir Danvers Carew is described as â€Å"an aged and beautiful gentleman† who is said to have â€Å"bowed and accosted Hyde with a very pretty manner of politeness†, it is oblivious to us what exactly it was that provoked Hyde to engage in such a horrifying murder. The fact that Hyde breaks out in a â€Å"great flame of anger† and trampled on Sir Danvers until his bones were â€Å"audibly shattered† and also that the heavy wooden cane he used to beat Sir Danvers with was broken in half, indicates the intensity of Hyde’s anger and how malicious the murder really was. The murder case brings out the cruelty in Hyde, and furthermore, represents the savagery within him and how animal like his nature is – how could a person kill another man so viciously, without even feeling the slightest bit of remorse? Hyde’s fury is described as â€Å"apelike† and the fact that his behaviour is linked to him being a beast or a savage animal all comes down once again, to the repression of Jekyll’s feelings – the monster in him comes out roaring. Once Jekyll transforms back into himself he realises just how awful the murder he committed as Hyde is and this leaves him feeling shocked and also worried about the amount of trouble he will be in, so therefore vows to never take the potion again. On the other hand, Hyde makes it impossible for Jekyll to stick to this vow. This is for the reason that Hyde loathes Jekyll; he wants to be this free, untamed personality all the time and so the power that he has over Jekyll grows more and more until Jekyll finds himself unwillingly transforming into Hyde at random times, without even needing to drink the potion. Jekyll becomes helpless and acknowledges that the only way he will ever be able to get rid of Hyde is by ending his own life. Throughout the novel, R.L. Stevenson uses language which portrays both Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde as two very different characters, both of their contrasting descriptions suggest that they are nothing alike and that they have nothing in common – they are both opposites. If it wasn’t for Jekyll’s will which shows us both characters are well acquainted, we would think that they have nothing to do with each other. As soon as Hyde is just vaguely mentioned in the novel, the other characters and the narrative descriptions use negative language directly towards him. They act as if they’ve been horrifically shocked by his facial features which makes the reader picture him as a repulsive looking creature, especially as he is said to be â€Å"pale and dwarfish† and that he â€Å"gave an impression of deformity without any nameable malformation†. The text even indicates that there is something so wrong with Hyde’s physical appearance that he can scare away the other characters in the book by simply looking at them – â€Å"but gave me one look, so ugly that it brought out the sweat on me like running.† Also Hyde is often related to having animal-like characteristics and behaviour, linking to Darwin’s theory of evolution which was newly introduced in the Victorian times around the same period the story was set. The idea that humans had evolved from animals extremely shocked the Victorians. On one hand it was difficult for them to get their heads around the fact that humans descended from apes and that the human mind could be composed of animal element, since they strongly believed that God was the creator of the world and all the species, contradicting Darwin’s theory which challenged creation stories and religious beliefs. On the other hand it was highly disturbing for the Victorians to acknowledge that they too had descended from apes, when they thought that every individual had been uniquely made by God. It must have been especially frightening, for a Victorian to read The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and discover the beastlike aspects of Hyde which suggest that he is stuck in the phase of evolving from an ape into a human. This also reflects back to Jekyll creating the potion – by attempting to split his personality, he was tampering with God’s creation and going beyond the limits as a human. Jekyll goes too far with his experiments, resulting in disasters. The two different areas in London that Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde are associated with also differentiate from each other and reflect their contrasting personalities. Jekyll lives in Cavendish Square, a very wealthy area in the west end of London, symbolising the high status of the career that Jekyll has – he’s a d octor who is wealthy and respectable. Alternatively Hyde comes from Soho; one of the poorest areas in London with a bad reputation, at the time the story was set. It is described as a â€Å"dismal quarter† with â€Å"muddy ways† and â€Å"slatternly passengers† and was home to the disreputable and indecent places in the Victorian times, such as brothels and music halls – there was a â€Å"dingy street, a gin palace, a low French eating house, a shop for the retail of penny numbers† which indicates the low wealth of Soho. The â€Å"dingy streets† and cheapness of Soho makes the reader imagine dirty and grubby roads in comparison to those of Cavendish Square which are â€Å"as clean as a ball-room floor†. The quote â€Å"many ragged children huddled in the doorways† describes the poverty-stricken and deprived state of this area. Naturally this poorer area would have a higher crime rate than other areas in London, which is why it was where one might go to make dodgy deals, or where a person would be most likely to bump into criminals and beggars. Soho particularly reflects Hyde’s personality and the reader can see exactly why he would fit in so well in such a place, as he can be defined as a criminal in many occasions of the story. The theme of duality throughout the story is also reflected in other characters of the story and the setting too, as well as just Jekyll and Hyde. There are many cases where some of the characters are shown to be hypocrites and even lead double lives. For example, the policeman investigating the Carew murder case â€Å"lit up with professional ambition† when he comes to realise that it is the local MP whose death he is in looking into, and the advantages of this case for his career regardless of how brutally Sir Danvers Carew was killed. This hypocritical behaviour of the policeman clearly shows the reader his selfishness and that he cares more about what good it would do him to deal with something that would â€Å"make a deal of noise† than exposing a murderer. He knows that it would lead to his personal recognition within the community, as Sir Danvers was a gentleman who was highly looked up to so he seizes the chance. In addition to this Sir Danvers was said to be walking the street alone, late at night around the time of his murder so despite the fact that he appears to be so polite and innocent, is there no chance that he could have had another unsuspected side to him, too? Another example of a hypocrite would be the old woman at Hyde’s house, who is even said to have an â€Å"evil face, smoothed by hypocrisy†. On the hearing of Hyde being in trouble with the police, â€Å"a flash of odious joy appeared upon the woman’s face† meaning that it is to her satisfaction to hear about her master’s sins and involvement in crime when it’s her job to still be loyal and trustworthy towards him, regardless of any crime he has committed. Although there’s nothing more than a couple of sentences to these two little revelations in the novel, they reveal to the reader the true and double natures of people who we would expect better from. Even Jekyll’s house symbolises duality – firstly there are two entrances, a front door used by Jekyll and the back door used by Hyde, supporting that there are two sides to everything, and also that it seems less obvious to the reader that they are both the same person. The front section of the house consists of Jekyll’s general living space, and he commonly uses this area to throw dinner parties and gatherings. The hall is â€Å"warmed by a bright, open fire and furnished with costly cabinets of oak† which gives the impression of being very welcoming and comforting. Jekyll’s elegant home echoes a â€Å"great air of wealth and comfort† representing the character he acts as in public. The rear door which Hyde enters and leaves from is â€Å"blistered and distained† and leads to Jekyll’s laboratory and private room where Hyde is usually seen. The back rooms of the house don’t share the elegant interior and hospitable atmosphere of the front rooms making them seem as if they are not connected to each other. The laboratory is a â€Å"sinister block of building† with no windows which makes it significantly dark and depressing as there is no natural light coming in to the room. The negative language used links Hyde to the back section of the building and reflects his personality. We have already acknowledged that the theme of duality is related to the suppression of the Victorian society, as we know Jekyll’s double nature exists due to hiding his feelings. It was common for Victorians, gentlemen in particular, to suppress their feelings as status depended on reputation, making it difficult for them to give into pleasures that they des ire. An example of this is shown in Mr Utterson the lawyer, who solves the truth behind the story of Jekyll & Hyde. As his profession has a high status, he obviously has to live up to the good reputation he has – the quote â€Å"and though he enjoyed the theatre, had not crossed the doors of one for twenty years† shows that he refrains from doing the things he would like to, simply concealing his emotions. Likewise, Mr Enfield subtly implies that he is also hiding something when he quotes â€Å"I was coming home from some place at the end of the world, about three o’clock of a black winter morning† – as he doesn’t give any details about where he was and he was out so late, perhaps he was committing some type of sin, and giving into his suppression. The structure of the book continues to reflect the predominant theme of duality as it has a non linear narrative with a number of characters narrating the different chapters of the story. This suggests that there are more than two ways of looking at something, as the reader gets to see the same event through the eyes of different people and learn about their varying viewpoints, which backs up the author’s theory that â€Å"man is not truly one, but truly two†. Although it is effective for us to be told the story from multiple perspectives, since it creates more of a mysterious tone throughout the novel and sets the suspense, it is quite biased as the accounts we are told from the different characters are based on their individual emotions and opinions regarding the events. I believe that Stevenson succeeds in getting his belief of dual nature in humans, across to the readers throughout the novel as the overall message of the book is that the human personality can be split into several parts. There is no one person who is all pure, or all evil, each and every one of us has different personalities and people living within ourselves. At one point in life, all humans will have put on a faà §ade, pretending to be a different person in public whilst their true emotions remain hidden inside. Stevenson explores this concept in depth, and the conclusion is that there will never be just one way of looking at something; there is never just one side to a story.

Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha Essays - Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha, Roddy Doyle

Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha Essays - Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha, Roddy Doyle Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha The novel Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha has no authorial presence at all, yet the reader gains a richer understanding of the situation than Paddy or any other 10-year old could ever have. With regard to the parents break up, how does Doyle achieve this? There are many factors which suggest how Doyle has succeeded in creating a 'triangular relationship' between himself the reader and the narrator Paddy Clarke so that the reader has a greater awareness of the predicament that Paddy is in. Doyles achievement is how he alternates the poetic and realistic without once lapsing into stream-of-self-consciousness; the only way we - as readers can tell it's written by an adult, is by the spelling. We see the violence in Paddy's life peripherally; Doyle tells us nothing more than what the child sees and comprehends. One of the reasons for Roddy Doyles success lies in creating a realistic and convincing character for a 10-year old child. He does this by his clever use of language, and also in how he arranges his sentences to convey deep emotion and feeling than any emotive language could: Hed hit her. Across the face; smack. I tried to imagine it. It didnt make sense. Id heard it; hed hit her. Shed come out of the kitchen, straight up to their bedroom. Across the face. P190 In this instance, Doyle has used short and evident sentences, to invoke a feeling of awe and confusion. The short sentences represent how Paddy is dumbstruck and lost for words, shocked by what hes heard this is also highlighted when he says here; I tried to imagine it. It didnt make sense. Here, he also emphatically uses onomatopoeia smack, which adds to the sense of fearful respect and also Paddys child-like interpretation of events. Repetition is used here Across the face heading his oft-repeated amazement. Another example of how Doyle uses repetition can be seen on pages 153 and 154: I waited for them to say something different, wanting it - Only now, all I could do was listen and wish. I didnt pray; there were no prayers for this. But I rocked the same way as I did when I was saying prayers.I rocked - Stop stop stop stop . Doyle uses repetition to show Paddys anxiety, when he repeats stop. Here, Paddy is mentally commanding his parents to stop in desperation, as he thought he had done on page 42: - Stop. There was a gap. It had worked; Id forced them to stop. He believes that he has the power to make his parents stop arguing, as shown on page 42, but realisation dawns when he repeatedly tells them to stop on page 154, and it doesnt work. This reflects on the fact that Paddy Clarke is a child, and his inability to restrain his emotions is a facet of his youth showing through. Another childish aspect throughout the book is how Paddy like other children at that age would spouts offhand irrelevant knowledge thats hes picked up from class or elsewhere: Snails and slugs were gastropods; they had stomach feet. The real name for soccer was association football. Association football was played with a round ball on a rectangular pitch by two sides of eleven people... Geronimo was the last of the renegade Apaches I learned this by heart. I liked it. Readers can relate to this, as we can all remember when wed learnt something that wed found particularly fascinating at school or the library, and recited it all the time, thinking we were clever. Another reason why the reader of Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha has a higher understanding than is simply because the adult audience has more experience in family issues from our own experiences. We can see the violence in his life superficially; we are told nothing more than what the child sees and comprehends. A good example of this can be found on page 95: Ma said something to Da. I didnt hear it. I looked at ma again. She was still looking at Da. Catherine had one of Mas fingers in her mouth and she was biting real hard she had a few teeth but Ma didnt do