Life Span Development and Personality Essay Example for Free

Life Span Development and Personality Essay Today the topic of discussion will focus on the famous Sigmund Freud and his viewpoints on developmental psychology. This discussion seeks to answer four questions about Sigmund Freud’s life. The first topic is Sigmund Fraud’s influences and environment in psychological development. Second the discussion seeks to reveal Sigmund Freud’s view of family issues or support systems that influenced Freud’s developmental growth and adjustment. Third the discussion seeks to explain two different theories of personality. The discussion seeks to explain how each theory differs in terms of the explanation of Freud’s unique pattern and traits. The fourth and final topic of discussion seeks to explain the theatrical approach that explains both Freud’s behaviors and achievements. The reason this paper chose to write about famous Sigmund Freud explained. Sigmund Freud was born in 1856 and died in 1940. Freud studied the personality of humans. Freud describes three major systems of the human personality. Sigmund Freud’s structural model is as follows: 1. the id holds the human sexual and aggression energy driven by impulses and characterized by a human’s primary thinking (Kowalski Westen, 2011). 2. The superego explains a human’s conscience and a major source of ideas established through a person’s identity (Kowalski Westen, 2011). 3. The ego describes a person’s desires, morality, and desires (Kowalski Westen, 2011). Sigmund Freud’s psychosexual development suggest in the first five years the human personality begins. Zero to one is the oral stage of development. Children f rom zero to one gain the most gratification from sucking than from biting and chewing food and sometimes other objects. In stage one through three describes the anal stage. During the anal stage children seem to gain gratification from defecation through the anus. The conflict begins when children begin potty training. Some children hold back feces causing him or her to become constipated. Generalized by some children’s behavior and the way he or she does, for example, cleanliness, stinginess, or stubbornness. On the other hand some children may have accidents in his or her pants. This may relate to expulsive personality, for example, disorderly conduct, messiness, and throwing fits. The final stage of three to five referred to as the phallic stage (Maitland, 2011). In this stage the genital area becomes a sense of pleasure. This causes the superego to begin and guards against incest and aggression. Children also can feel a sense of inferiority in this stage. Freud suggests mental disorders may come from an individual’s history and not just an individual’s physical impairments. Freud developed a new way to analyze human behavior. Freud’s view explained mental energy comes from the body. Freud believed all humans can only obtain a limited amount of mental energy. Freud believed human behavior was from causation. Freud also believed tension-reduction consist of a human goal for behavior. Freud claims humans consist of two human impulses for example, sexual impulses, and libido. Sexual impulses consist of life affirming impulses. Libido consists of energy source impulses. Needs consist of basic life impulse, aggression consists of death encouraging impulses, and aggressive impulses consist of an energy source for aggressive impulses. When a human impulse grows the more likelihood the human will react on impulses to reduce the need he or she feels to do so. Life affirming libido consists of activities, people objects, or goals. Cathexis consists of the process of investing libidinal energy. When an individual uses excessive cathexis this may lead to neurosis, however, neurosis is treatable. Treatment for neurosis often referred to catharsis or in other words a talking therapy. Sigmund Freud believed mental processes were unconscious. Sigmund Freud believed the conscious contains an individual’s specific information that a person’s paying attention at any given time. Freud believed the preconscious contains information or clues most individuals do not pay attention to unless recalled by a specific situation. Sigmund Freud believed the unconscious contains an individual’s desires, feelings, and thoughts held without an individual’s knowledge. However, these desires, feelings, and thoughts affect an individual’s everyday life. Freud believed the information in an individual’s unconscious emerges by ac cident, such as joke telling, dreams, symptoms of illness, and the associations between individual’s ideas. Sometimes the anger in a person’s unconscious comes out by mistake Understanding Psychology (nd). Another theory of Sigmund Freud contains the three components of personality, for example, id, superego and ego. Freud claimed the three components appear always in conflict with each other, according Freud the conflicts usually appear sexual or aggressive and most violate the societal rules. From a personal standpoint Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalyst theory the way an individual’s personality develops during ages zero to five. However, from a personal standpoint an individual’s personality develops throughout his or her life. For example children’s development goes through the age of 18. Some children take longer to develop than others. Even in adulthood an individual’s experiences and environment may change a person’s personality. Many individual live and are raised in bad environment’s that would affect his or her personality. On the other hand many people are also raised in a good environment that also affects his or her personality i n a positive and occasionally negative manner. In both scenarios an individual’s actions and behavior may affect his or her personalities throughout life. This paper was chosen on Sigmund Freud because he was a very intriguing and an expert in psychological research. In conclusion, this paper revealed the famous research in psychological research by Sigmund Freud. The paper revealed the three components of personality, according to Sigmund Freud. The three components of personality according to Sigmund Freud are id, superego, and ego. Sigmund Freud suggests that most human behavior develops during the age of zero to five. This paper revealed the Sigmund Freud’s view human personality and the unconscious mind of a human. Freud also suggests that many disorders may come from an individual’s history and not just an individual’s physical impairments. Freud suggests most disorders deal with sexual disorders or an individual’s aggressive behavior. Freud also suggests humans act on his or her impulses. Some people may act on bad impulses that may lead to terrible outcomes and consequences for his or her actions. Sigmund Freud was greatly scrutinized for his psychological research. Sigmund Freud was chosen for this paper because his research was very intriguing research in human personality and human behavior. Reference: Kowalski, R., and Westen, D. (2011). Psychology (6th ed.).Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Retrieved from University of Phoenix eBook Col Maitland, L., L. (2011). Personality Theories and Approaches for AP Psychology Retrieved from http://www. education.com Understanding Psychology (nd). Chapter 14 Theories of Personality Retrieved from http://www.glencoe.com

The Public Choice Essays -- Education School Essays

The Public Choice For some parents, deciding on a school for their children can be a difficult decision. Many parents do not spend much time thinking about it; they place their children into the local school designated by where they live. Others attended a private school themselves and found that it was a beneficial experience and therefore want the same for their kids. But which is better: private schools or public schools? While there are many advantages and disadvantages in each (nothing is going to be absolutely perfect), we are going to focus on the benefits of an education in the public school system, or in other words, schools funded by the government that are for anyone to attend. An accurate definition found in the Encyclopedia of American Education (1996) states: â€Å"Any elementary or secondary school under control of elected or appointed civil authority, supported entirely by public tax monies, and, with few exceptions, open to all students in a designated district, free of any tuition charges.† (780) These include elementary, secondary schools and vocational schools. Public schools are a good choice in education because they provide a wide variety of subjects to study, are diverse in their student body, available to everyone, yet can sometimes be misunderstood. Imagine sitting in a class, completely bored out of your mind. This is not difficult considering everyone has taken a class like this somewhere along the road of their education. Not every class can be exciting and we should know that. Now imagine every class is of this level, with no â€Å"break†, or elective, classes incorporated into your day. Although this may not apply to all private schools, there are many that focus on specific topics. So even though the... ...des. Students who do well in a public school setting tend to feel better about themselves. They succeed because they want to, not because someone else forced them to. Whether someone prefers a public school or a private school, it all depends on the person. Unfortunately, not everyone is able to appreciate all that public schools have to offer because they get their vision blurred by all the benefits of private schools. The only thing holding them back may be cost. If these people would just take some time to find that there are just as many wonderful things about the schools our governments provide, they may feel more confident in their choice. Those never exposed to anything but private education miss out on the diversity among students, extra vocational and extracurricular classes, and may even continue to not understand all that public schools have to offer.

Racism: a Comparison and Contrast of Two Literary Works Essay

The words, purpose and identity are familiar with mankind. These words can mean many things to many different individuals. Each person on this Earth is uniquely made with unique DNA patterns and fingerprints that cannot be matched with any other individual among the billions of people that occupy this planet we call Earth. Why is prejudice so common among people if everyone is unique and special? This question remains unanswered. Many authors have written essays, stories, and poems about negative judgmental and biased views of people in hopes to understand unfair treatment towards mankind and promote changes in human behavior that will bring solutions of peace. This paper will reflect on the stories, Country Lovers, by Nadine Gordimer and The Welcome Table, by Alice Walker. Gordimer and Walker have become activists for fair and unbiased treatment among mankind. Both authors have been rewarded numerous honorary awards for promoting peace. Ironically, Nadine Gordimer is a white woman born and raised in South Africa and Alice Walker is an African American but both authors have kindred spirits and are celebrated for their commitments to fight the cruel elements of racism. Nadine Gordimer’s Country Lovers is a story about Thebedi, a black girl, and Paulus, a white boy, who fell in love. Gordimer wrote the story from a third-person point of view. The point of view is objective; the characters’ thoughts are not exposed as in the omniscient point of view. The point of view allows the reader to concentrate on the characters’ actions, creating a more dramatic effect. Thebedi and Paulus’ attraction to each other was unforbidden and socially not acceptable in the South African culture in which they were raised. Both children were raised on a South African farm, one that was owned by Paulus’ parents. Thebedi was one of the many black hired hands, slaves, or servants who worked on the Eysendyck’s family farm. The story does not clearly give a time period when the events unfolded, but the era of white dominance that existed over the black people was clearly defined, as the story states, â€Å"The farm children play together when they are small, but once the white children go away to school they soon don’t play together any more†¦so that by the time early adolescence is reached, the black children are making along with the bodily changes common to all, an  easy transition to adult forms of address, beginning to call their old playmates missus and baasie little master† (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 1). Paulus and Thebedi exchanged gifts and their attraction for each other grew. Thebedi proudly wore a pair of hoop earrings given to her by Paulus but could not tell of the giver’s real identity and stated the earrings came from â€Å"the missus† (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 3). Likewise, Paulus wore a bracelet made of elephant hair that was given by Thebedi but told everyone that one of the workers from his father’s farm had given him the gift (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 2). The fact that each person hid each other’s identities about the gifts suggest that their friendship was not acceptable because of their differences in racial and social statuses. As Thebedi and Paulus grew older, they frequently met at a remote dried river bed, each one walking a measureable distance from each other so that they would not be seen together. Paulus often spoke about his adventures away from home, as he was home for the holidays from a boarding school. Thebedi would ask questions and listen intently, enjoying Paulus’ company and laughing together (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 4). The friendship grew stronger and became sexual (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraphs 5 and 8). The couple continued to sneak around and see each other secretly, sometimes at Paulus’ home while his parents were away, as expressed in the line, †The door of the parents’ bedroom was locked and the empty rooms where the girls had slept had sheets of plastic spread over the beds. It was in one of these that she and the farmer’s son stayed together whole nights almost: she had to get away before the house servants, who knew her, came in at dawn.† (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 8). The mood of the story quickly begins to change when Thebedi, at age 18, enters an arranged marriage union with Njabulo, a fellow black worker on the Eysendyck farm (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 9). Thebedi’s father was also a worker on the Eysendyck farm and saw Njabulo worthy of marrying his daughter; Njabulo was of the same social status as Thebedi’s family. Thebedi did not tell Paulus about her engagement to Njabulo, nor did she speak of her pregnancy, which was in the seventh month at the time she  married Njabulo (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 9). Soon, Thebedi gives birth to a healthy daughter, and with no surprise to the reader, the baby was light skinned (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 9). Njabulo’s disposition is one of high regards, as the story describes him as making no complaint, but â€Å"Out of his farm labourer’s earnings he bought†¦a pink plastic bath, six napkins, a card of safety pins, a knitted jacket, cap and bootees, a dress, and a tin of Johnson’s Baby Powder, for Thebedi’s baby† (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 9). The author points out that the baby belongs to Thebedi, not Njabulo, but Njabulo assumes the role as father and provides for the child whole heartedly. The story’s plot comes to the climax when Paulus comes home from veterinary school and discovers not only is Thebedi married, but she has a child. Paulus visits the infant and immediately realizes he is the father of Thebedi’s baby. His reaction was a disturbed and embarrassed one, as the story explains, â€Å"He said nothing. He struggled for a moment with a grimace of tears, anger, and self-pity† as he asked Thebedi, â€Å"You haven’t been near the house with it?† (Clugston 2010,section 3.1, paragraphs 11 and 12). The reader sees the heart of Paulus at this point. It. The baby is referred to an it. Not a person but a thing that would bring him and his family shame and disgrace if anyone should find out. Paulus’s heart is further exposed with his commands to Thebedi, â€Å"Don’t take it out. Stay inside. Can’t you take it away somewhere. You must give it to someone—â€Å". Paulus left Thebedi’s home with the words, â€Å"I feel like killing myself† coming from the depths of his heart and out of his mouth (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 19). Paulus returns to Thebedi’s home shortly after and the reader discovers that Thebedi’s baby has been poisoned to death. The autopsy revealed intestinal damage not consistent with natural reason of death (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 22). Thebedi appears at an initial examination for the murder charges against Paulus, wearing the hoop earrings that Paulus had given her during their summer romance (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 24). Thebedi stated she had seen Paulus pouring something into her daughter’s mouth at the initial examination but later changed her story at Paulus’ trial, stating  she did not see anything that took place in her home. Thebedi wore her hoop earrings at both events, suggesting to the reader that she would always cherish Paulus and the affair they had together (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 25). Thebedi brought along her newborn baby at the time of the trial, suggesting to the reader that Thebedi had to go on with her life and concentrate on her new husband and her new baby; while Thebedi still cherished the memories that she and Paulus made together, those memories were only in the past. The reality was that Thebedi and Paulus had no chance of a future together. Paulus was found not guilty of the murder charge and Thebedi was interviewed by the Sunday papers. The author carefully points out that the newspapers â€Å"spelled her name in a variety of ways† suggesting that Thebedi was a common person and viewed in society as an individual with little importance (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 30). The story ends with Thebedi’s comment, â€Å"It was a thing of our childhood. We don’t see each other anymore† (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 30). The author of Country Lovers, Nadine Gordimer, spoke out against racism in her interview presented by the Nobel Peace Organization on October 3, 2007. Having been awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1991, an unnamed spokesperson asked Gordimer about the turning point in her life in which she became an activist for racism. Gordimer explained, â€Å"It was unthinkable for me to know black people whom would share my interests. It was always a servant/master basis. Even if you were the child of the master or mistress, you still had this particular position. But being troubled about it†¦I was beginning to find out there was something called racism in this world, and I was living in it. I was part of it. And then when I was older, training at Witwatersrand University, and there for the first time I met.there was one or two†¦there were a few young black members of the University, of course was whites only†¦there were certain courses that were not available in the black universities. And then as concession of post graduate level a few blacks would come in. I met one or two black people with whom I had far more in common than I had with the young whites that I knew at the time. There were young people who were trying to write, who were beginning to write. We had this enormous approach to life. I began at that age to make black friends. I moved into and entered into a fitting of incredible distortions of racism.  Not only the impression of blacks but the distortions in my personality and my mind as a white. These became very part of my life and indeed started my way to freedom from racism† (Nobelpeace.org, 2007). Gordimer, a native from Springs,South Africa, undoubtedly wrote Country Lovers based on experiences she dealt with firsthand growing up. In addition to winning the Nobel Prize in Literature, she has been awarded with several honorary degrees, ranging from Yale, Harvard, Columbia, and holds degrees from University of York in England and Witwatersrand in South Africa among many other schools (Nobelpeace.org, 2005). Some of the many honors extended to Gordimer have included being an Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Honorary Member of the American Academy & Institute of Arts & Letters, and she was awarded the Presidential Medal of Honour of the Republic of Chile (Nobelpeace.org, 2007). Alice Walker’s The Welcome Table also presents a theme of racism. Walker is best known for her novel, The Color Purple, which led to Walker’s award of the Pulitzer Prize for the literary work (Clugston 2010, section 3.1,). The Welcome Table is told from a third-person omniscient point of view, carefully giving details of the thoughts of the main character, an elderly, rejected black woman, and those of the snobbish, prejudiced white people. The third-person omniscient point of view allows the reader to understand the deepest thoughts of the characters. The story begins introducing the old woman as one who has known suffering and who is looking for peace, dressed in her best Sunday clothes intending to worship at a local church (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 1). The unusual thing about the black woman’s presence is that the church is in an all- white community. The white people do not want the woman at their church and the narrator is quick to disclose the peoples’ thoughts, And so they gazed nakedly upon their own fear transferred; a fear of the black and the old, a terror of the unknown as well as of the deeply known† (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 1). The narrator adds that â€Å"some of them there saw the age, the dotage, the missing buttons down the front of her mildewed black dress†¦Those who knew the hesitant creeping up on them of the law, saw the beginning of the end of the sanctuary of Christian worship, saw the desecration of Holy Church, and  saw an invasion of privacy, which they struggled to believe they still kept† (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 2). The white people’s prejudice against the black woman suggest that this time period was when Civil Rights laws were being ma de and the white people did not want to accept the new laws that gave the right to black people to be in public places (Cheever J. and Mason B., 2012). Cheever and Mason add that â€Å"Privacy did not really mean privacy. They wanted to maintain their unequal social system and their own privileges at all costs† (Cheever J. and Mason B., 2012). The narrator tells the reader that the woman had walked a half of a mile to get to the church (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 3). The determination of the elderly woman contrasts with the character Thebedi from the previous story in that the unnamed woman does not give in to the white people’s dominating views, as she presses on to the white church. However, Thebedi knew her place within the society that was dominated by the white people. Thebedi accepted that she would not ever be able to fit into the white people’s world and have a future together with Paulus; subsequently, she proceded to marry Njabulo, even though she was carrying Paulus’ child. The next paragraph of The Welcome Table states that even the reverend of the church disapproved of the black woman’s presence (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 4). The people â€Å"stared at her as they came in and sat down near the front†¦the site of her, sitting there somehow passionately ignoring them, brought them up short, burning Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 4). An usher came up to the woman and told her to leave. (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 5). The Welcome Table and Country Lovers both introduce the reader to white people’s prejudiced and biased views toward black people. The black woman was looked down as on outcast in The Welcome Table, much like Paulus’ response when he saw his daughter, a product of a lowly, black servant girl. Paulus’ remark that he wanted to kill himself tells the reader that he thought his situation was so embarrassing and disgraceful that he would rather end his life than be exposed that he was a father to a half black daughter. Paulus wanted to send Thebedi away or have Thebedi give the baby to someone far away- so that no one would know about Thebedi and Paulus’ affair. The white people in The Welcome Table did not  kill anyone as Paulus did but they had hatred in their hearts and they might as well have killed the black woman. They literally picked her up and tossed her back outside into the cold air. The narrator describes the incident as â€Å"It was the ladies who finally did what to them had to be done. Daring their burly indecisive husbands to throw the old colored woman out they made their point†¦Could their husbands expect them to sit up in church with that? No, no, the husbands were quick to answer and even quicker to do their duty (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 5). The next paragraph describes the removal of the woman, â€Å"Under the old woman’s arms they placed their hard fists†¦Under the old woman’s arms they raised their fists, flexed their muscular shoulders, and out she flew through the door, back under the cold blue sky (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 6). The narrator explains that the woman had been singing in her head when she was rudely interrupted and thrown out of the church (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 7). This woman was singing. She had joy in her heart. She was daring and brave to come to the white people’s church but it should not have been a risk. It’s God’s people who are supposed to be lovable and accepting towards people-all people of every race, color, and tribe. The use of the third-person omniscient point of view engages the reader to feel the discomfort and the agitation towards the biased white people who threw someone out of the church simply because of the color of a person’s skin. It is one of the most disgraceful and wrong sins church people could commit. The narrator states that the woman looked down the highway and saw Jesus himself approaching her (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 8). The white people met together for church meeting in their best Sunday clothes, most likely carrying their bibles and sang of God’s love, yet God was not in their church. God was with the black woman and showed compassion by sending His Son Jesus to meet the woman and comfort her in her time of need. As Jesus approached the woman, he simply stated, â€Å"Follow Me† (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 10). The author must have known about the bible because Jesus told his disciples many times throughout the bible to follow him. Jesus also stated, â€Å"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me† (John 10:14) and â€Å"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them,  and they follow me† (John 10:27). The words, Follow Me were very appropriate for this story. The woman gladly followed Jesus. The narrator states, â€Å"Jesus gave her one of his beautiful smiles and they walked on. She did not know where they were going; someplace wonderful, she suspected. The ground was like clouds under their feet, and she felt she could walk forever without becoming the least bit tired (Clugston 2010, section 3.1, paragraph 11). Not only is the woman walking side by side by Jesus, she is strengthened and her energy is renewed. The character, Njabulo in Country Lovers can be compared to the loving father like figure Jesus was to the old woman in The Welcome Table. Both Njabulo and Jesus met the needs of those around them. Njabulo was a great provider and bought several of the babies’ needs from his small income earned on the farm and was a great support to Thebedi throughout the story. Jesus accepted the elderly black woman and was everything she needed, taking care of all her needs. Alice Walker, the author of The Welcome Table, has dedicated her entire life in helping people. She has been very active in the Civil Rights Movement, promoting equal rights for black people (Jokinen 2006, p.1). She has also been an activist for the women’s movement, anti-apartheid movement, anti-nuclear movement, and has opposed female genital mutilation (Jokinen 2006, p.1). Walker has received many awards, including the Pulitzer Prize in 1983 for her novel, The Color Purple, the Lillian Smith Award, The Rosenthal Award, the Front Page Award for Best Magazine Criticism, and the Townsend Prize and Lyndhurst Prize (Jokinen 2006, p.1). In the story, Country Lovers, the character Paulus was also educated and could have been influential in his community as an activist for black people but Paulus was more concerned about his social status. The thought of having a biracial child was degrading and unthinkable to Paulus. There has been recent attention to biracial identities in America. Kelly Rockquemore and David Brunsma teamed up together to write Beyond Black; Biracial Identity in America (Harris 2003, p. 436). The two authors presented a new approach to studying biracial profiles, arguing that previous projects by others assumed that all biracial individuals thought of themselves as merely biracial but, in reality, biracials claim they think of themselves as always white, always  black, sometimes white, sometimes black, or even raceless (Harris 2003, p.436). One could suspect that biracial studies as the ones conducted by Rockquemore and Brunsma would promote black and white people to live together in peace, merging communities, families, and hopefully, churches. South Africa, the setting of the story, Country Lovers, has actually had to address the issues of racism and has made changes to its government to promote equal rights among the people. In 1994, South Africa adopted a democratic form of government (Lefko-Everetti, 2012, p. 69). The Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, made into law in 1996, states â€Å"full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms’ and prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender† (Lefko-Everetti, 2012, p. 69). It has been said that non-racialism was one of the key founding values in making the new Constitution (Lefko-Everetti, 2012, p.79). Lefko-Everetti adds that, â€Å"the goal of pursuing a non-racial society accepting of diversity is embodied in the Constitution and continues to be embraced by many South Africans† (Lefko-Everetti, p.79). Authors Alice Walker and Nadine Gordimer have dedicated themselves for fighting for active rights of the people. Both authors have been awarded with numerous awards and have been recognized publicly for their written works against racism. Many other authors have written about racism and have joined their efforts with Walker and Gordimer to promote peace among mankind and to recognize that every individual deserves to be respected and not to be judged upon the color of their skin, nor of their religion preference, or their ethnicity. The stories, The Welcome Table and Country Lovers are prime examples of literary works that point out the sad and ugly realities of racism’s presence in communities. REFERENCES Cheever, J. and Mason, B. (2012) Alice Walker:Fiction and the Human Experience. Retrieved from http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/pardee/li220- 05/protected/lessons/notes/notes6.htm Clugston, R.W. (2010) Journey Into Literature. San Diego, California: Bridgepoint Education Inc. Harrris, D.R. (2003) Beyond Black:Biracial Identity in America (review). Social Forces, Volume 82, Number 1, September 2003, pp.436-437. Oxford University Press. Retrieved From Project MUSE at http://muse.jhu.edu Jokinen, A. (1996 ) Anniina’s Alice Walker Page. Retrieved from http://www.luminarium.org Lefko-Everetti, K (2012). Beyond race? Exploring indicators of (dis)advantage to achieve South Africa’s equity goals. Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa, Number 79, 2012 pp.69-92. Retrieved from Project MUSE at http://muse.jhu.edu Nobelprize.org (2005) The Nobel Prize in Literature 1991 Nadine Gordimer Biography. Retrieved from www.nobelprize.org/nobel/prize.org/Nobel_prizesliterture/laureaates/ 1991/gordimer-bio.html Nobelprize.org (2007) Nadine Gordimer on racism 10-3-07(shown on YouTube). Retrieved From http://www.Youtube.com/watch?v+VWcxSsd8NsM

The Seagull by Chekhov Character Analysis

Bang! A gunshot is heard from offstage. The characters on stage are startled, frightened. Their pleasant game of cards has come to a screeching halt. A doctor peeks into the adjoining room. He returns to calm Irina Arkadina; she fears her son Konstantin has killed himself. Dr. Dorn lies and says, â€Å"Don’t upset yourself†¦ A bottle of ether burst.† A moment later, he takes Irina’s boyfriend aside and whispers the truth. â€Å"Take Irina Nikolaevna somewhere, away from here. The fact is, Konstantin Gavrilovich has shot himself.† Then, the curtain falls and the play ends. The audience has learned that the troubled young writer Konstantin has committed suicide, and that his mother will be grief-stricken by the end of the evening. Sounds depressing, doesnt it? Yet Chekhov very purposefully labeled The Seagull a comedy. Ha, Ha! Ha Uh I Dont Get It The Seagull is filled with many elements of drama: believable characters, realistic events, serious situations, unhappy outcomes. Yet, there is still an undercurrent of humor flowing beneath the surface of the play. Fans of the Three Stooges may disagree, but there is in fact comedy to be found within The Seagulls somber characters. However, that does not qualify Chekhovs play as a slapstick or romantic comedy. Instead, think of it as a tragicomedy. For those not familiar with the events of the play, read the synopsis of The Seagull. If the audience pays close attention, they will learn that Chekhov’s characters consistently create their own misery, and therein lurks the humor, dark and bitter though it may be. The Characters: Masha: The daughter of the estate manager. She claims to be profoundly in love with Konstantin. Alas, the young writer pays no attention to her devotion. Whats Tragic? Masha wears black. Why? Her reply: â€Å"Because I’m morning my life.† Masha is openly unhappy. She drinks too much. She is addicted to snuff tobacco. By the fourth act, Masha begrudgingly marries Medvedenko, the earnest and under-appreciated school teacher. However, she does not love him. And even though she has his child, she exhibits no motherly compassion, only boredom to the prospect of raising a family. She believes that she must move far away in order to forget her love for Konstantin. By the play’s end, the audience is left to imagine her devastation in reaction to Konstantin’s suicide. Whats Funny? She says she’s in love, but she never says why. She believes Konstantin has the â€Å"manner of a poet.† But aside from that, what does she see in this mentally unstable, seagull murdering, mama’s boy? As my â€Å"hip† students would say: â€Å"She’s got no game!† We never see her flirt, enchant, or seduce. She just wears dreary clothing and consumes mass quantities of vodka. Because she sulks instead of pursuing her dreams, her self-pity is more likely to elicit a cynical chuckle rather than a sigh of sympathy. Sorin: The frail sixty-year old owner of the estate. A former government employee, he lives a quiet and rather dissatisfying life in the country. He is the brother of Irina and the kindly uncle of Konstantin. Whats Tragic? As each act progresses, he complains more and more of his health. He falls asleep during conversations and suffers from fainting spells. Several times he mentions how he wants to hold onto life, but his doctor offers no remedy, with the exception of sleeping pills. Some characters encourage him to leave the country and go into town. However, he never manages to leave his residence, and it seems clear he will soon die, leaving behind an unexciting life. Whats Funny? In act four, Sorin decides that his life would make a worthy short story. SORIN: Once upon a time in my youth I was bound and determined to become a writer – and I never became one. I was bound and determined to speak beautifully – and I spoke hideously {†¦} I was bound and determined to get married – and I never did. Bound and determined to live in town my whole life – and here I am, ending it all up in the country and that’s all there is to it. Yet, Sorin takes no satisfaction in his actual accomplishments. He served as a state councilor, earning a high rank in the Justice Department, in a career that spanned twenty-eight years. His esteemed government position afforded him a large, beautiful estate by a tranquil lake. However he takes no pleasure in his country sanctuary. His own employee, Shamrayev (Masha’s father) controls the farm, the horses, and the household. At times Sorin seems almost imprisoned by his own servants. Here, Chekhov provides an amusing satire: members of the upper-class are at the mercy of the tyrannical working class. Dr. Dorn: A country doctor and friend of Sorin and Irina. Unlike the other characters, he appreciates Konstantin’s ground-breaking writing style. Whats Tragic? Actually, he’s one of the more cheerful of Chekhovs characters. However, he exhibits a disturbing apathy when his patient, Sorin, pleads for health and long life. SORIN: Just understand that I want to live.DORN: That’s asinine. Every life must come to an end. Not much of a bedside manner! Whats funny? Dorn is perhaps the only character aware of the excessively high levels of unrequited love simmering within the characters around him. He blames it on the enchantment of the lake. Shamrayev’s wife, Paulina, is very attracted to Dr. Dorn, yet he does not encourage her or halt her pursuit. In a very funny moment, the innocent Nina gives Dorn a bouquet of flowers. Paulina pretends to find them delightful. Then, as soon as Nina is out of earshot Paulina viciously tells Dorn, â€Å"Give me those flowers!† Then she jealously rips them to shreds. Nina: The beautiful young neighbor of Konstantin. She is infatuated with famous people such as Konstatin’s mother and the renowned novelist Boris Alexyvich Trigorin. She desires to become a famous actress in her own right. Whats Tragic? Nina represents the loss of innocence. She believes that Trigorin is a great and moral person simply because of his fame. Unfortunately, during the two years that pass between acts three and four, Nina has an affair with Trigorin. She becomes pregnant, the child dies, and Trigorin disregards her like a child grown bored with an old toy. Nina works as an actress, but she is neither good nor successful. By the play’s end, she feels wretched and confused about herself. She begins referring to herself as â€Å"the seagull,† the innocent bird that was shot, killed, stuffed and mounted. Whats funny? At the play’s end, despite all of the emotional harm she has received, she loves Trigorin more than ever. Humor is generated from her terrible judge of character. How can she love a man that has stolen her innocence and caused so much pain? We can laugh – not out of amusement – but because we too were once (and perhaps still are) naà ¯ve. Irina: A famous actress of the Russian stage. She is also the unappreciative mother of Konstantin. Whats Tragic? Irina does not understand or support her son’s writing career. Knowing that Konstantin is obsessed with breaking away from traditional drama and literature, she torments her son by quoting Shakespeare. There are some parallels between Irina and Gertrude, the mother of Shakespeare’s greatest tragic character: Hamlet. Like Gertrude, Irina is in love with a man that her son abhors. Also, like Hamlet’s mother, Irina’s questionable morals provide the foundation of her son’s melancholy. Whats Funny? Irina’s flaw is one found in many diva characters. She has an enormously inflated ego yet is terribly insecure. Here are some examples that showcase her incongruities: She brags about her steadfast youth and beauty yet begs Trigorin to stay in their relationship despite her old age.She flaunts her success but claims that she has no money to help her distressed son or her ailing brother.She loves her son yet maintains a romantic relationship which she knows tortures Konstantin’s soul. Irina’s life is filled with contradiction, an essential ingredient in comedy. Konstantin Treplev: A young, idealistic and often desperate writer who lives in the shadow of his famous mother. Whats Tragic? Fraught with emotional problems, Konstatin wants to be loved by Nina and his mother, but instead the female characters turn their affections toward Boris Trigorin. Tortured by his unrequited love for Nina, and the ill-favored reception of his play, Konstantin shoots a seagull, a symbol of innocence and freedom. Shortly after, he attempts suicide. After Nina leaves for Moscow, Konstantin writes furiously and gradually gains success as an author. Nevertheless, his approaching fame means little to him. So long as Nina and his mother choose Trigorin, Konstantin can never be content. And so, at the play’s end, he finally succeeds in taking his own life. Whats Funny? Because of the violent end of Konstantin’s life, it is difficult to view act four as a finale of a comedy. However, Konstantin can be viewed as a satire of the â€Å"new movement† of symbolist writers at the dawn of the twentieth century. Throughout most of the play, Konstantin is passionate about creating new artistic forms and abolishing old ones. However, by the play’s conclusion he decides that forms do not really matter. What is important is to â€Å"just keep writing.† That epiphany sounds somewhat encouraging, yet by the end of act four he tears up his manuscripts and shoots himself. What makes him so miserable? Nina? His art? His mother? Trigorin? A mental disorder? All of the above? Because his melancholy is so difficult to pin point, the audience may ultimately find Konstantin to be merely a sad fool, a far cry from his more philosophical literary counterpart, Hamlet. In the last moment of this grim comedy, the audience knows that Konstantin is dead. We do not witness the extreme grief of the mother, or Masha, or Nina or anyone else. Instead, the curtain closes as they play cards, oblivious to tragedy. Viciously funny stuff, don’t you agree?