Harriet Tubman: Brave American Abolitionist

Harriet Tubman

The person we know as Harriet Tubman is well known in history. Many do not know her real name is Araminta Minty Ross given to her by her parents, Harriet Green and Benjamin Ross. Araminta was born in 1820 in Maryland, she was born to enslaved african americans and had grown up on a plantation owned by Edward Bordas. Eventually over the time she was living there she had changed her name to Harriet Tubman. Over time Tubman was also known as Moses to many people.

Harriet had many hardships in life one out of many being beaten for not wanting to do jobs that were not on the field and due to that she would be sent home beat. Another hardship would be her escaping slavery and leaving her family behind. Harriet was torn after her siblings had been sold to the point where she wanted to escape for her self and to finally achieve her goal of freedom.Harriet Tubman had escaped to pennsylvania in 1849, but freedom was not enough for her, she wanted more and the more she wanted is freedom for others as well such as her own family and friends on the plantation.

Harriet Tubman was known for many great things, one of those things were her use of the Underground Railroad where she was known as a conductor , a conductor is a person who leads enslaved african americans to freedom. Then there is pilots, these people go down south to seek enslaved african americans wanting to escape. The enslaved african americans wanting to escape to freedom are known as passengers or even cargo. Lastly, the safehouses the enslaved african americans resided in were known as stations. Harriet Tubman had used the Underground Railroad the most during the fall or spring due to the shorter daylight hours. It was easier to move the enslaved african americans in the dark so they wouldn't be caught in the process of a crime.

Tubman never use the same route back to back, the reason for this is so she wouldn't be caught helping enslaved african americans escape from their owners. While doing this she had gone against the Fugitive Slave Law which was a law where you had to return the runaway slaves. Harriet never cared about this law, she had continued escorting enslaved african americans north into Canada.

Harriet Tubman was also known as a brave American abolitionist, political activist, as well as a women's suffrage activist.

Did you like this example?

Harriet Tubman: Brave American Abolitionist. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

My Emotions from Reading the Glass Castle

The memoir The Glass Castle by Jeannette Wallr's was published in 2005. The Glass Castle is an attention grabbing story of Jeannette Walls childhood. This book is a Teen and an Adult book to read.The book is full of vulgar language, drama, and many horrific tragedies.Through all theyve been through most of the children came out successful except of the parents they still didnt become successful they basically just followed their kids wherever they went.The Wallr's children came a long way from where they were from the beginning when they were children. The Glass Castle novel is mainly about Jeannette Walls parents is unable to hold a steady job, so Jeanette's family were constantly running from bill collectors, living very filthy, unsafe living conditions, and also moving from home to home never knowing when and where their next meal will come from. Jeannetter's life when she was a kid was atrocious because when she was three years old she was cooking herself some hotdogs on the hot oven top and her clothes had caught fire and so she was rushed to the hospital.The memoir begins with Jeannette being in New York and is riding in a Taxi on her way to a party and she is looking out of the window and she spots her mom looting through the trash, Jeannette immediately panics and goes back home. She is worried about her professional life that someone will see them two together, but on a emotional level that it is her mother and she is in big New york cold and homeless. In the Memoir The Glass Castle I feel like the author repeatedly proves over and over again that Jeannette hold no bad feelings towards her parents and the disastrous childhood she had to overcome during their neglect. No matter how many times Jeannetter's parents would betray,frustrate,or belittle her she always finds a way to think it was always out of love. Also, another thing that feel that the author did right is describing what kind of parents they really are especially when they squander money on themselves instead of really seeing what to do with the money like not leaving their kids at home with no food or warm clothing. In The Glass Castle what I didnt like is the Parentr's not getting their priorities straight and cant get a job, so they all have to keep running from bill collectors and moving place to place. Another thing I dont like about the novel is the parents just neglecting their kids especially the mom for example when Jeannette had told her that a pervert had snuck into her room and was touching all on her the mom didnt even panic or anything she still left the window up. In the novel it shows that the dad may get drunk a lot and go crazy but when it came to someone hurting his kid she would protect them. When Rex hurt about the man coming into Jeannetter's room he panicked and went hunting for them all that night and a couple of more nights.

Did you like this example?

My Emotions From Reading The Glass Castle. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Poverty and the Glass Castle

An estimated 39.7 million Americans lived in poverty according to the official measure (Current Poverty Rate). Poverty has negatively affected people and their families. Sadly, anyone of any age race or culture can experience poverty. Unfortunately, as Jeannette Walls experiences living in poverty in her memoir, The Glass Castle, poverty can have a big impact on families living conditions and their children's education. Poverty affects the family for when the parents dont have any job to bring in money for the rest of the family has no one to rely on for basic life needs including food, water, and shelter. Though Jeannette Wallsr's family had no support to help them while they lived in poverty, tools are available to help families in poverty. There are many tools available to support poverty like Jeannetter's family in The Glass Castle, including welfare services and food banks. First, welfare services developed to help support families in poverty like Jeanetter's family. In the article Welfare programs shown to reduce poverty in America produced by Jana Kasperkevic reports that without tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit, poverty for children under 18 would be 22.8% instead of the official poverty rate of 19.9% (Kasperkevic). With the help of tax credits, the rate of people in poverty has decreased. Tax credits like the federal earned income tax credit are a tax incentive that reduces the amount of money that people owe the government. With this help, people do not pay high amounts of money to the government but are able to pay low amounts that help support their financial struggles. This is a major help to people in poverty for if they had to pay more money to the government in taxes they would lose all they have that help support their daily lives. This tax credit allows them to eliminate most or sometimes all the money that they owe. In Wallsr's memoir, she states the although [they] were the poorest family on Little Hobart Street, Mom and Dad never applied for welfare or food stamps, and they always refused charity (Walls 159). Like a few people in poverty, Jeannette Wallsr's family doesnt want help from the government to help support their family. This is not the best way to approach poverty though because without help from welfare services families are less likely to be able to overcome their financial struggles. In addition, neither parents of the family looked for a job they just learned to live with their lives as they were instead of trying to get help and change the way they live. With the help of welfare services, they would not have to run form the government each time they could not pay tax fines or be struggling for a job. Jeanette's family could have also benefited from food banks in their quest to relieve themselves from their hunger. Food banks were developed to help support families in poverty like Jeannetter's family. In the article, Hunger in America states that Millions of people struggle to get by because of underemployment, stagnant wages and rising costs of living. In fact, more than 46 million people still turn to the Feeding America network each year for extra support (Hunger America). With the help of food banks, people can get the support they need to keep their families from starving. Food banks are widely known in America as locations where food is given out for free to families in need. These food banks are extremely important because they allow families to eat when they might have starved otherwise. With this help, people living in poverty dont have to worry about if they will have a meal that day or not. Food banks help people in poverty more than people would expect because they are allowing people to not have to worry about finding money to buy food but can keep saving and live better lives. In Wallsr's memoir, she states Mom gave me a startled look. Id broken one of our unspoken rules: We were always supposed to pretend our life was one long and incredibly fun adventure (Walls 69). Like a few people in poverty, Jeannette Wallsr's family does not want to believe that they are in poverty and are having hard times they try to pretend that everything is okay and that their lives are great. Though the children are starving and there is nothing the parents can do because they do not have the money to pay for food. With food banks, families like Jeannetter's family dont have to worry if family members are going to have food that day and parents dont have to feel guilty when their children ask them for something to eat and they have nothing to give them and no money to buy anything with. Jeannette Wallsr's family had so many opportunities to have a better life it was just whether they were taking the chances they had been given. In conclusion, there are many tools available to support poverty like Jeannette's family in The Glass Castle, including welfare services and food banks. Welfare services offer a lot of support for people in poverty and help them on their path of recovering. Each type of Welfare service whether its public housing programs, tax debt relief or credit card settlement enables people to get the support they need to be able to maintain healthy lives. In addition, welfare services make it possible for families to be able to save the little money they make so that it can help them when they need it. Unfortunately, Jeanetter's family refused to get support from the government and therefore they did not have funds to support their daily lives. Even though Jeannette's family was able to save some money for food and shelter, without major tools they were not able to have enough money to support the family. One of the major tools available for someone in poverty is a food bank. Food banks are extremely helpful to people in poverty for they make it possible for families to have something to eat when they would have starved otherwise. With the help of a food bank, Jeannetter's family would have been able to have food for the whole family and the children would no longer have to find thrown away food at school to be able to eat. Sadly, the family's mistrust of the government and not allowing themselves to be helped did not allow them to get the help they needed and the remained in poverty. Finally, though Jeannetter's family never got help from the government, a hunger-free and financially supported life is possible, and there are many tools and supports that are available to help people in poverty live better and healthier lives.

Did you like this example?

Poverty And The Glass Castle. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

The Glass Castle and Literary Theories

If you dont want to sink, you better figure out how to swim. (Walls, 66) Although this quote was said by Rex as he was teaching Jeanette to swim, it stands out because it wraps up the whole theme of the book in that one little line. Not only is this the strategy that represents the way Jeanette and he siblings were raised but it shows the way they were often presented with challenges, some life threatening, but nine times out of ten those challenges were always out of their control. The two literary devices that I found to be most evident share the common theme of what you put in, is what you get out, those being the analysis of both the marxist theory; taking a deeper look into the way social class affects different aspects of the Walls family and the archetype theory looking at the typical main characters and their situations that are suspected to represent universal patterns of human nature.

There were many characters that had archetypes tied to them, but the one that I think had the biggest influence on everyone at the end of the day was Rex, the father or head honcho of the Walls household. He was seen as a mentor at first but also the villain. Rex was very intelligent and he taught his kids many important life skills throughout their lives. The only downfall was when he drank, which was often, he became short tempered and extremely manipulative. As a mentor he was able to teach his kids many skills that set them apart from other kids their age, things they may not learn in school but just going through the motions of life.

Rex taught them the essentials in life. He really drove home the values of objects and the priorities in which they came. The children placed very little value on objects and more so on things that will last their whole life, We laughed about the all the kids who believed in the Santa myth and got nothing for Christmas but a bunch of cheap plastic toys. Years from now, when all the junk they got is broken and long forgotten, Dad said, youll still have your stars. (Walls, 41) That quote shows that he was a successful mentor in the aspect he taught his kids the values he believes matter. On the flipside Rex also fulfilled the villain archetype when he drank. He often lost jobs because of his alcoholic-like issues and in the bigger picture, that lead to no constant flow of income for the household. On one Christmas when the family was doing well they chose to celebrate Christmas on Christmas instead of celebrating a week later when everything is cheaper and on sale as they had done in the past. Later that night Rex came home drunk and thought to really light up Christmas (Walls 115) by burning the Christmas tree down. His actions ruined Christmas for the entire family but no one says anything to him because of his abusive behavior when intoxicated. Many times throughout the story there are small hints that Rex abuses his wife, yet she wont leave him. Rex ultimately puts the family in tough situations by not bringing in enough money, spending it all on alcohol or causing discomfort for everyone at home with his abusive behavior.

Throughout the story Rose Mary and Rex represent the lower class of society and utilize what they think are goods in their situation as a way to influence their social standing. Regardless of the childrenr's well-being, both parents attempt to move up in society through valuing in their minds what are the right things to value. Another word for this is commodification, which is the idea of valuing things not for their usefulness but for their power to impress others or for their potential resale opportunities. Rose Mary displays this through her constant artwork that she takes so much pride in and would rather do than raise her own children. At one point she poses the question, Why spend the afternoon making a meal that will be gone in an hour, she'd ask us, ?when in the same amount of time, I can do a painting that will last forever? (Walls, 56). Rose Maryr's question indicates her attitude that her paintings will impress others later on proving her commodification values. Her desire to impress others with her art pieces reveal her attempt to increase her social standing. Her concerns with how she is viewed in this aspect show how peopler's socioeconomic situations play a role in how they do certain things.

Along with the commodification values seen through the parents actions, the childrenr's reluctancy to remain in the lower social class show how they were able to actually take their experiences and better from them, especially Jeanette. Jeannette continuously attempts to raise her social standing but she was stuck in the lower class due to her father who would always ruin their attempts with his outbursts of anger, non-present source of income and his alcoholism. Just because he was suffering in the lower class he tried to make it seem like his children were incapable of making themselves into something more. For example, Jeanette planed to sell her rocks and create a business when she was younger. She wanted to create a business in which she had, ...rock sales I explained that all my rocks were incredibly valuable and I'd rather keep them than sell them for less than they were worth (Walls, 59-60). Jeannette tries to raise herself out of her horrific situation from a young age knowing her full potential. When Jeannette moves away from her father into the city, her standards of living as well as other aspects improve, only because she worked for it. That is one of the key messages all of the children did take from their situation, if they wanted something they needed to work and sacrifice in order to get it.

All in all Jeanette Wallr's memoir preached the idea of one being their biggest enemy, by illustrating the way Rex lived his life and how it affected those around him in regards to the different character archetypes connected to him and looking into the extreme lifestyle in which the family endured due to the influence their social class had on them. The literary theories within The Glass Castle help to really showcase the different impacts little things have on the way people do certain things or why they choose to live the way they do. Although it may look a certain way to someone, no one will truly know the reasons why, unless really evaluating and taking everything into account, just as in this instance the literary theories helped do.

Did you like this example?

The Glass Castle And Literary Theories. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Why Franklin Valued Learning

Franklin valued learning and was constantly striving to gain knowledge and improve himself. He would do certain things to improve his writing and his reputation. Franklin would always want to gain knowledge and improve. This autobiography showed how he wanted to improve and showed how he had improved. Franklin helped people, improved his group writings and did things to help the community. I had chosen the second option to write about this story because it felt most suitable for me.

In Franklins group, junto he would use his partners work to edit and make it his own, an example of this from his autobiography. The rules that I drew up required that every member, in his turn, should produce one or more queries on any point of morals, politics, or natural philosophy, to be discussed by the company (45). Franklin would take the prints from some of the group members, and print it as his own, then would use them to improve his work and knowledge. Franklin would then post his paper to the public, showing how he had improved. Franklin would not be a bad person and steal his groups writings, he would use them to help improve his own. Franklin would help his group improve as well, he would help them with their papers, inventions and many other things. He had loved doing this to help the community and just to entertain children.

Throughout the book, franklin would use virtues to help him get through tough times and use to use them everyday for good outcome. 1. Temperance eat not to dullness, drink not to elevation. 2. Silence speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation (64 65). This quote proves my point with franklin using these every day. For temperance, he uses this virtue to control his temper. For silence, he shows how to avoid bad conversations and to keep his mouth shut. These virtues had helped franklin all throughout his life, meaning that if something were to happen, he would try and avoid the situation and keep his mouth shut to not get in trouble.

Franklin would help others in need to help his reputation grow. He would take advantage of this to make others look at him differently, to see how much of a great person he is. This man continued to live in this decaying place, and to declaim some strain, refusing for many years to buy a house there (45). This quote shows how franklin found this homeless man and had visited him and gave him food and water. He would do this to help the man, and gain reputation with others. Franklin would always want to help his reputation grow, but at the same time he would really want to help the people in need. Franklin would not only do this for his reputation, but to help the people in need to help them live a better life. Ever since he had left his family, he wouldnt want anything bad to happen to the families in his city, this is why he had made so many inventions to help the community survive.

My thesis statement and supporting evidence proves that franklin would always want to improve with his knowledge and improve his reputation. The supporting evidence in this paper shows how he would help people to improve his reputation, he would use his group partners writings to improve his own and he would invent things such as power, furniture and clothes. Franklin had left his family due to a drinking problem, but this had inspired him to do things for the better. This is what made franklin write, invent things and help people in the community.

Did you like this example?

Why Franklin Valued Learning. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Feminism in their Eyes were Watching God

In the 1930r's, there was a very academic, social, and artistic outbreak that took place in Harlem, New York. During the time the outbreak was called the New Negro Movement named by Alan Locke. Zora Neal Hurston says, But I am not tragically colored (Hurston 2), she is saying that it is not a bad thing that she is colored more like a good thing because she can use that to her advantage. In Their Eyes Were Watching God and How it feels to be Colored Me, both works talk about how it is difficult to be oppressed and it is hard to forget about those things. We can tell that in How it Feels to be Colored Me is why Hurston wrote the book. In Their Eyes Are Watching God, Zora Neal Hurston uses three major ideas: the freedom to express feminine voice, the freedom to search for your horizons, and freedom to stray from the accustomed society norms to convey that women want the capability to not be labeled as history says a woman should be. Janier's true voice and her capability to express herself shows us her freedom as a strong woman. When Janie was with Logan and Jody, she could not express herself because Logan and Jody muzzled her opinion, so she could not be heard. On the other hand, when Tea Cake came into Janier's life, he respected her voice and let her express it. Janie loved the conversation and sometimes she thought up good stories on the mule, but Joe had forbidden her to indulge. He didn't want her talking after such trashy people (Hurston 53). When Jody and Janie were married Jody would not let Janie join the conversation because he thought that they were not good enough for her by doing this it restricts her voice from its true potential. As Janie and Jodyr's marriage went on the restriction of Janier's voice just got worse. Time came when she fought back with her tongue as best, she could, but it didn't do her any good. It just made Joe do more. He wanted her submission and he'd keep on fighting until he felt he had it. So gradually, she pressed her teeth together and learned to hush (Hurston 71). As their marriage went on Janie figured out that there was no use in trying to fight back so she gave in to Jodyr's nonsense. Janie does not have any desire to express her voice after this because Jody has restricted her so much. In the Foreword, by Alaine Locke, says, Through You I entered Heaven and Hell knew rapture and despair. This means a woman does not get in to Heaven or Hell unless it is through a man/ They also can not know the emotions like rapture happiness or despair sadness. In Their Eyes Were Watching God, Zora Neal Hurston uses the imagery of the horizon a lot. In the novel the horizon is the finish line for Janie, in the bookr's entirety Janie is determined to reach the horizon so she can determine what her real self-worth is. Here Nanny had taken the biggest thing God ever made, the horizon--for no matter how far a person can go the horizon is still way beyond you--and pinched it in to such a little bit of a thing that she could tie it about her grandmother's neck tight enough to choke her (Hurston 89). At this point in the book, Janie is mad at Nanny because she says that nanny took away her horizons by telling her how to marry instead of marrying for love but to marry for money. So Ah'm back home agin and Ah'm satisfied tuh be heah. Ah done been tuh de horizon and back and now Ah kin set heah in mah house and live by comparisons (Hurston 191). Now Janie has reached her horizon and she can say that she has found her true self and is her natural self. In How it Feels to be Colored Me, Hurston says, At certain times I have no race I belong to no race or time, I am the eternal feminine with its string of beads (Hurston . Hurston is saying its not that she does not want to be a woman, she wants the freedom to not be labeled as history says a woman should be but to be able to express your natural state of being. As the story goes on Janie goes from husband to husband and as she is going from husband to husband, she wants the freedom to stray from the accustomed path. For generations and generations women have followed the same rules and now she has enough to courage to do something different no matter how other people judge her or the punishment. What she doin coming back here in dem overhalls? Can't she find no dress to put on?-Where's dat blue satin dress she left here in?...-Betcha he off wid some gal so young she ain't even got no hairs-why she don't stay in her class? (Hurston 2). When Janie returns to Eatonville after the death of Tea Cake, she does not act at all like a traditional woman would act and she does not care what anyone thinks because Janie knows that she has found her true self and is one-hundred percent confident in herself. Ah wants things sweet wid mah marriage lak when you sit under a pear tree and think. Ah... (Hurston 24). This is when Janie talk to Nanny about the decision to marry Logan and how Janie does not love him. Janie wants her life to be under a pear tree and to be in love, but she never stops dreaming which is why she is different than other women. In the Foreword, by Alaine Locke says Douglas writings are a documenting of the feminine heart and that woman want the experience of love (Locke 17). He is saying that women do not want to marry for money, they want a real experience of what love is. In Their Eyes Were Watching God, Zora Neal Hurston portrays that women want the freedom to determine their actions and words without being told what to do or say by men. We can understand her work because she relates it to a relative topic to todays world. We can now understand what oppressing someoner's voice does to a person and to avoid doing that to people in the world today.

Did you like this example?

Feminism In Their Eyes Were Watching God. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Mortality in their Eyes were Watching God

Zora Neale Hurston’s takes her audience on a psychological adventure within her novel, Their Eyes Were Watching God. In her narration, the protagonist, Janie Crawford, goes on a transformational hero’s journey where her innermost thoughts are explored. From being influenced into an arranged marriage to finding the true love of her life, it is through the emotions revealed in Janie’s internal events that leads her to her ultimate awakening at the end of the novel as she reaches her horizon. Janie’s internal conflicts play a significant role on the overall plot of the novel, as the protagonist discovers her own personal voice and strength in a society that is dominated by men and heavily influenced by class. However, throughout the novel Janie struggles with aligning her point of view to her actions except for when her life depends on it. Janie’s psychological events reveal her mortality; Janie’s ultimate awakening is developed in the matters of life and death. Hurston depicts Janie’s quest for love and self empowerment through the use of a flashback as the protagonist shares her story with her best friend, Pheoby Watson. In the start of her memories, Janie’s viewpoint of love is exposed after her experience under a pear tree blossoms into her ideology of love. One afternoon, “She saw a dust-bearing bee sink into the sanctum of a bloom; the thousand sister-calyxes arch to meet the love embrace and the ecstatic shiver of the tree from root to tiniest branch creaming in every blossom and frothing with delight… this was a marriage!” This encounter with the bees introduces Janie to the display of love and intimacy, as it becomes her expectation of the relationships between her and her future lover. When Janie attempts to act on her change in consciousness with a boy she had once ignored, Johnny Taylor, her Nanny interferes as she has an opposing viewpoint of men. Seeing men as cynical beings, Nanny forces Janie into an arranged marriage with Logan Killicks as she attempts to strip Jannie’s vision of love. This is the beginning of Jannie’s isolation as she conforms to her Nanny’s wishes, yet with her idea of love engraved in the hidden parts of her mind. Janie marries Logan at Nanny’s house, secretly hoping to find intimacy throughout her new relationship with her husband. However, she is rudely awaken with the reality that marriage does not bring about love. Her isolation becomes her misery. Janie wants absolutely no part in doing the work Logan assigns, like the mule he offers her to help plow the fields. The significance of the mention of the mule becomes a symbolic figure that is referenced in Janie’s quest of self empowerment. These silent unpredictable creatures further emphasize Janie’s solitude. Within the isolation of her mind, Janie battles her desire for the horizon with the wishes of her Nanny. However, it is not until Nanny dies that she realizes she must find a form of escapism. She proceeds to emerge into the next chapter of her life with with Joe Starks with ," ... a feeling of sudden newness and change.... Even if Joe was not there waiting for her, the change was bound to do her good. " As the yearning for the pollen tree was never removed from Jannie’s inner thoughts, her impulse to leave with Joe was due to his appealing idea of “life beyond.” It is evident here that Janie is always conscious of her inner feelings and needs, although what instigates her is questionable as she never truly acted until the death of Nanny. She ventures into a new experience unaware of what it might hold, but certain that her impulse is needed to explore her desire of reaching the horizon that she had only made possible within her inner thoughts. There is room to argue that Janie’s relationship with Joe serves her nothing but greater oppression with a higher social class. Throughout their marriage, Joe becomes more overbearing as becoming mayor of Eatonville has influenced his sovereignty. It is revealed that Joe created a false image of a better future for Janie, as he forces her to abide by his regulations. For instance, the symbolism within the head rags he forced her to wear express his constraints over Janie’s femininity, which results in her sacrificing her identity. Although Janie doesn’t agree with his domination, “Ah hates disagreement and confusion, so Ah better not talk”, such statement creates a dangerous atmosphere as Janie’s act of conforming to Joe’s needs questions the power, or even existence, of her own voice. Almost being vanished of her identity, Janie meets death once again as Joe passes away. After twenty long years of marriage, Joe’s noticeably older age has allowed for another escape route in Janie’s attempt at reaching the horizon. Janie begins to comprehend that her voice can still be formed. This leads to Janie confronting Joe on his deathbed and letting out all the frustration she has been holding in her internal thoughts including his: self righteousness, selfishness, and lack of love. In his last moments, Joe wishes death upon Janie, which is ultimately ironic seeing that although death is surrounded by a negative connotation, it has proven to be Janie’s only tool to reshape her life. Living free as a widow, it isn’t too long before the protagonist finds herself with another man. Tea Cake becomes Jannie’s true love, the only man that was able to make her feel again after her ordeal with Johnny. This young man has a contrasting viewpoint of gender roles when compared to Janie’s past relations. It is because of such beliefs that Tea Cake begins earning the trust of not only Janie, but the audience. By building a loving and caring foundation with Janie, the young man influences her perception of life as she is given the opportunity to express her internal thoughts. However, this warm atmosphere is soon demolished after Tea Cake asserts his dominance. The thematic continuation of a male-female relationship in the novel reveals the submission of women. By objectifying women, “Being able to whip her reassured him in possession”, Tea Cake returns Janie into silence. Yet, this silence has proven to be profound, as the voice lingering within her mind has been shown to be Janie’s strength in a time where her own internal values aren’t respected. Holding onto such strength, is essential for Janie overcoming her horizon. When a hurricane threatens and defeats Janie and Tea Cake, the young man sacrifices himself and is bitten by a rabid dog after being stuck in an intense flood. Alluding to Noah’s Ark in the bible, a flood of this magnitude signifies rebirth and reconstruction. For Janie, this was the ultimate start of transforming into a new persona; reaching the horizon she so deeply desired. After Tea Cake was infected by the deadly virus from the dog, he became mad and lost all of the appealing qualities Janie was in love with. Under the suppression of a man, with the guide of no one else, when presented with death one final time Janie chose and valued her own life and could no longer be silenced. Pulling the trigger that ultimately leads to the death of her lover, Janie has finally escaped her internal conflicts by finally acting upon her viewpoints. Throughout the entirety of the novel, whether married to Logan, Joe, or even Tea Cake, Janie struggled immensely with finding her voice. The protagonist yearned for a future where she could no longer be suppressed by the men in her life and find true love within herself; her own personal horizon. Death brings Janie closer and closer to reaching such a dream, however, it isn’t until Janie understands the true value of her voice that she can escape her unhealthy relationships. Overall deepening her understanding of mortality, Janie’s powerful transformation provides a new outlook on death; through its lasting affect, death ventures into new beginnings that can rid an individual of fear as it pushes them into a future where they embrace each moment as their own.

Did you like this example?

Mortality In Their Eyes Were Watching God. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Their Eyes were Watching God: Main Characters

People are very impressed by the length of time that it took Zora to write the book, because it seems so difficult to do. The author was clearly dedicated in telling this story because she was doing it during constant work and research. Under the impression that this was a story about Janier's life, it was confusing that the story started off with her being older. The beginning is clearly the end of the story, so she is probably going to be the one telling her own story later. The people talking about how she apparently ran off with someone implies that the story she will tell is a love story. Janie walking past them just oozing confidence means that she has somehow became that way over the course of the story, which could mean that this story is also about maturing. The tree is clearly a symbol for females and how the wait for bees (males) to come when they need them. She wanted to be like the tree and was ready to have a connection with someone that could make her whole, like how trees need to be pollinated by bees, and bees need pollen from trees. Janie had a dream of being in love, fulfilled, hoping that even though she was marrying someone who she did not love, her dream would still come true. After being married to Logan, she realized that it did not come so easy, and she needed to take the matter into her own hands. Jody is clearly meant to contrast Logan with what kind of people they are and how they affect Janie. They represent the different worldviews of Janie and her Nanny, with Janie wanting someone who she is physically and emotionally attached with, who can make her feel fulfilled in life, and her nanny who feels like she needs someone who can provide stability and keep her from going poor. Jody feels the need to control Janie too make her into the type of woman he wants. Shutting her down from making a speech pushed his ideals on her and prevented her from expressing herself. She is shut down and changed by him to fit the role that he wants her to fill, never allowing her her own identity. This chapter focus on the dynamic between Jody and Janie and how their relationship evolves. Jody is shown to be more and more in need of controlling Janie, making her do thing for him and shutting her down, restricting her. He even influences her when he isnt there. Jody could be seen as an antagonist at this point because her's the only one restricting Janie and providing an obstacle for her. But he isnt an antagonist, itr's just that his flawed beliefs in how women should be make him seem bad. Over the years, Jody and Janie change, Jody for the worse. He realizes that her's getting older and weaker, but Janie is still beautiful, and he envies this. There is a purposeful difference in how Jody and Janie are portrayed when getting older. Itr's also a symbol for the marriage. As they get older, the marriage deteriorates. This chapter is the culmination of all that Jody and Janie's marriage is. Janie finally let's out all of her frustration on a dying Jody, realizing that he's held her back from her dreams this entire time. They berate each other and that's it. Their entire marriage seemed to fly by so fast and it seems the author intended that. Here, Janie is finally pretty much free from Jody. There are many signs here to show that she feels more free than before. Instead of keeping to herself, she thinks a lot more, realizing things that sher's only subconsciously thought of, like how she hates her Nanny for how she affected her life. Janier's hair being let down is also a sign of her independence and freedom, as it was shown as a symbol of power for her earlier. When Jody had her tie her hair up, he was restricting that power. This chapter is where Tea Cake is introduced to Janie. Tea Cake clearly contrasts Janier's meeting with Jody as he seems to treat her a lot more respect, rather than just praise. The flirting and time spent between Janie and Tea Cake goes a lot more in-depth than between Janie and Jodyr's first meeting, which seemed like every time it was not very focused or glossed-over. Janie is conscientious of Tea Cake, fearing that he just wants her for her money. After falling for Jody the first time, she becomes wary of other men seemingly admiring her, but eventually she comes to realize that he actually likes her. The way the people in the town were talking about Janie is reminiscent of the way the ten people were talking about her in the beginning of the story. Because, of this, we sort of now what is going to happen, that she is going to leave with Tea Cake and eventually come back by herself, leaving it as a mystery as to why. Even though Janie is worried about Tea Cake questionable disappearing for long periods of time, she accepts the excuses he has, showing her trust. Their relationship goes on and seems almost surreal how good that itr's going. This shows where Janie feels fulfilled all over again. The relationship between the two is very good, almost too good. She tries to think that it is not like how Jody was, because he actually cares about her and her needs. Janie needs tea cake to act to her the same way she acts to him. She needs him to tell her that he does not like Nunkie. This is where it most clearly touches on the issues of race. The character of Mrs. Turner believes that being white is superior to being black. She is a product of her environment that she grew up in and convinced her of these things. Tea Cake beating Janie further shows the cracks in a relationship that, on the surface, seems perfect. It is strange that Tea Cake acts this way. The way the author just brushes over this though could imply that this is just a side effect of the time period that the author lived in, where domestic violence was a more acceptable part of life back then.

Did you like this example?

Their Eyes Were Watching God: Main Characters. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Symbols in their Eyes were Watching God

In today’s society, head shawls are commonly worn for religious purposes or used as accessories. In Their Eyes Were Watching God, it was used to hide someone’s beauty and identity. Throughout the book, Janie’s hair changes from being let down to tied up due to the forceful request upon her husband at the time, Jody. As Zora Neale Hurston writes in Their Eyes Were Watching God, Janie’s hair symbolizes her independence throughout the different times during her lifetime and the transitions between Janie’s hair style contributes to the normally white male power that she exerts, which assist her distort traditional power relationships throughout the book.

Janie’s beautiful hair was a distraction to men but it represented a lot about her character. Her foreshadowing return at the beginning of the book where she returns home, instantly being judged describes the reactions from many like, “The men noticed… the great rope of black hair swinging to her waist and unraveling in the wind like a plume” (Hurston 2). Janie’s hair represents strength and individuality. By her refusal to put it up, she expresses strength which gives her attention and a step towards possessing power. The town’s critique illustrates how it is considered undignified for a woman of Janie’s age and race, being a black female in her forties, to wear her hair down. Not only did her hair display her strength, but she was praised for being born with alluring hair. Mrs. Turner approves of her own physical features that are unique from her race making her lean towards the urge to be white, so that was, “her way of thinking all these things set her aside from Negroes. That was why she sought out Janie to friend with. Janie’s coffee-and-cream complexion and her luxurious hair made Mrs.Turner forgive her for wearing overalls like the other women who worked in the fields” (Hurston 140). Because both Janie and Mrs.Turner both have white tendencies and characteristics, they are able to relate to each other and create a friendship out of that. Mrs.Turner worships Janie because of her lovely braids and the attraction of men she brings. This benefits Janie’s desires to have even greater power with Tea Cake since Jody Starks dies of liver failure.

On the other side of the spectrum, the theme of power and control plays a vital role with Janie’s hair. Jody knew it was too beautiful to be seen out in public so, “Her hair was NOT going to show in the store. It didn’t seem sensible at all. That was because Joe never told Janie how jealous he was. He never told her how often he had seen the other men figuratively wallowing in it as she went about things in the store… That night he ordered Janie to tie up her hair around the store” (Hurston 55). This introduces the conflict of Jody’s control and Janie failed to see this possessive side of him before they marry. Janie’s shawl shows constraints imposed on subjugated women by men in power.

By forcing her to wear this item, it takes away her identity while for Jody, he is able to stay with her without becoming jealous. From this point on in their relationship, her independence began to diminish. Not long after his passing, Janie celebrates her liberation and so, “She went over to the dresser and looked hard at her skin and features. The young girl was gone, but a handsome woman had taken her place. She tore off the Kerchief from her head and let down her plentiful hair. The weight, the length, the glory was there. She took careful stock of herself, then combed her hair and tied it back up again” (Hurston 87). After Joe’s death, Janie was not hesitate to burn the shawls he demanded her to wear. She felt like her true self again, with the presence of her glorious hair. She was able to style it herself the way she wanted it after finding a man who accepted her, Tea Cake.

These two symbols, Janie’s hair and her shawl work hand in hand to result in strength and beauty and most importantly, power. Janie’s hair is constantly described as a symbol of power which dims gender lines and threatens Jody. Even though when it’s down and characterizes Janie, those attributes were hidden under the oppression and security of Jody. The shawl made her lose that power which therefore took away her identity. Even when under the control of her husband, Janie’s life played out in a way where her hair gave back her strength and control after the burning of the encapsulating shawls. The independence she held was accepted from her next lover which made her acquire equality and her hair showed beauty from then on.

Did you like this example?

Symbols In Their Eyes Were Watching God. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Depiction of Marriage Norms in Doll’s House

The play ?A Doll's house is a three-act play written by Henrik Ibsen in 1879 in Norway, Europe. The play is important for its critical perspectives toward nineteenth century marriage norms. In A Doll's House, Ibsen paints a bleak picture of the sacrificial roles held by women of all classes in his society. He is known as the father of the new genre in drama realism. Ibsen really portrayed what life is it like especially for women living in a patriarchal society. Its standard classification of gender roles and expectations it holds for a woman as a wife and a mother and as well as that of a man as a husband. The play lights up many flaws in the society in its structure and the expectation it has for individuals in relationships. There are many central themes in the play for discussion some of which are relevant to discuss in this paper are marriage, identity, infantilism, gender, rebellion etc.

Torvald and Nora are a couple with three children and their family fits the structure of a perfect middle-class family in their time. But this family picture of theirs became shattered when Krogstad in a letter revealed Norar's secret to her husband who reacts to it in a way that awakened the other side of Nora that has never been nurtured. She realizes the life of illusion and decides to leave her husband and children to go and construct her identity. Nora forged a signature to borrow money from Krogstad to save her husbandr's life. When Krogstad found out he was going to lose his job to Mrs. Linde, a friend of Norar's, he used the bond to blackmail Nora to persuade Torvald to let him keep his job in the bank. In a bitter sweet ending, Helmerr's relationship was broken but Krogstad and Mrs. Linde on the other hand rekindled a romantic relationship they had had in the past.

Marriage is one of the earliest structured institutions that spells out the various roles of the individuals involved. In a happy marriage in the nineteenth century, I would say, marriage in the Victorian era, women played roles than being themselves. They were to be obedient, subservient, the spiritual leader of the family, a guide to her children and most importantly a good support to her husband. Her goal was to maintain peace and comfort in the home and satisfy her husbandr's ego which typically includes sacrificing her agency and keeping her dependency on her husband. In the play, Nora exemplifies the conventional feminine standards of the time. She seems to be powerless, has no agency and confines herself through patriarchal expectations, that signifies a womanr's social role at that time, that is, just be a good wife and a mother. The man on the other hand is the breadwinner, provider and the decision maker. And here, Torvald exemplifies the conventional masculine standards of the time. The society locks women and men into two separate worlds. The former in domesticity and the latter in a domineering state.

In A Doll's House, the Helmers each had a unique role in their marriage. Nora, like every other woman in the Victorian Era played a role in which they supported their husbands, took care of their children, and made sure everything was perfect in and around the house- though with the help of a maid. Torvald provided the security of his family. Torvald treats Nora as his little irresponsible child who needs guidance all the time while Nora treats him as the man of the house who has the authority to do anything he wants and have things done his way. The play revealed some of the restrictions on women during the 19th century and the many problems it posed on them.

The play, through Torvald makes us see through the filter of societyr's perception of women. One of the fundamental differences between men and women is that men are rational beings and women more hysterical. Gender roles are based on norms, or standards, created by the society. In a patriarchic society, masculine roles have commonly been related with strength, aggression, and dominance, while feminine roles have traditionally been related with passivity, nurturing, and subordination. This means that society has made women to look fragile and view them as a people who need masculine help and direction.

They teach women to also accept their inferiority to men. In the play, in her husbandr's eyes, Nora is nothing but one silly woman. She is called several diminutive, childlike names by Torvald throughout the play. He invariably from the beginning of Act One, made a habit of addressing his wife, Nora, using terms that highlight her diminutive size and helpless condition. Some of which include "my little songbird," "squirrel," "lark," "my little featherhead," "my little skylark," "little person," "little woman or a cute scatterbrain whose thoughts are nonsensical and typical of any other woman. Torvald constantly used the modifier "little" before the names he calls Nora. These all usually followed the possessive "my," signaling his belief that Nora is his possession. This is typical in most marriages of the time and even now.

Throughout the play, Torvald looked down upon Nora and treats her as one of his possessions. She is something used for his satisfaction. She also accepts and plays along with him sometimes quoting and referring to herself by the pet names to make requests.

Did you like this example?

Depiction Of Marriage Norms In Doll's House. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Description of Male-Dominant Society

In A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen, Norar's relationships are strained by society's expectations of women's roles and how women are viewed by others. The story takes place during the Victorian Era where the quality of life heavily depended on oner's social status. For women, this was difficult. They dealt with harsh sexual restraints as they lacked several fundamental rights such as the right to vote, own property, and divorcing their husbands. These restraints caused women to be very reliant on their husbands which is largely apparent in Norar's relationship with Torvald. Torvaldr's use of childlike and condescending nicknames towards Nora reveals how men viewed women as inferior in this time period. Stuck in this unequal marriage, Nora must prevail against societyr's prescribed roles for women and discover her personal identity and journey. Nora must meet the needs of her husbands and children. She makes sacrifices to her husband and treats him to what society expects of a woman. She is quite the compassionate and loving wife as shown through her actions. She strives to be the perfect wife for Torvald and would do anything for his happiness. But while she clearly shows great care for him, he does not treat her the same way. We see how he treats Nora often through his name-calling which is fueled by his obligation to stick to societyr's framework. When he greets Nora in Act I, he calls her his little squirrel and sweet little spendthrift for wasting money on Christmas packages (3-4). This reveals how Torvald sees his wife as simply a doll by calling her objectifying names and emphasizes his belief that Nora is his. Money also plays a role in the play. Torvald is responsible for the financial welfare of his family and relishes his role as a protector for his wife. Because he controls the money, he believes it is acceptable to treat his wife in a patronizing manner. He believes the duty of women is to be a good wife and mother. Thus, he is more concerned with maintaining his morality and reputation than his wifer's wellbeing. Norar's detachment from reality blinds her from Torvaldr's treatment for much of the play. But towards the end, her decision to abandon him reveals how her character has developed over the course of the story. She experiences an epiphany when she informs him of her intent to leave him. She has never felt [her] mind so clear and certain as as she saw he was not the man [she] had thought (69). When Torvald unleashes his anger towards Nora for forging the letter, she recognizes that he is a different person than she had once believed. Even when she tries to communicate calmly to him, he criticizes her, calling her a blind, foolish woman for leaving him (68). Through this revelation, she realizes her marriage has been only an illusion and should not be obligated to let a man dictate her actions. There was no true love between her and Torvald. He only cared about his reputation and when she sacrificed her integrity for him, he cared about other things that were supposedly more important than his wife. As she walks out the door, she emphatically slams the door, symbolizing the conclusion of their uneven relationship. Ibsen writes this story during the highly controversial Victorian Era where society was male-dominant. Nora's decision to leave Torvald was definitely reasonable. She felt trapped, having no fulfillment and individuality so she could no longer endure under his control. Ibsen's use of realism helps bring clarity to key themes and challenges the audience to think about the societal issues that particularly affected Norar's life.

Did you like this example?

Description Of Male-Dominant Society. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

From a Dolls House to Dolls Home

In the presence of social construct, there is an apparent debate of the role and value of women. A standard which often reflects a societyr's cultural standards and level of education. Within the traditional eras (est. prior to modern depiction) women were categorized as inferior to men. Unable to act independently, women were to depend on men in order to complete any task. In the midst of these ideologies Henrik Ibsen, a self-proclaimed humanist, published A Dollr's House a play that sparked controversy due to the role women portrayed. The protagonist, Nora, finds her family in the depths of a household crisis caused by debt. In the hopes of assisting her family in their financial crisis; Nora quickly mobilizes by sacrificing her dignity and adapting as a working woman. By doing so Nora rejects the traditional expectation of women as dependent and helpless. During this time a working woman was rare and seen as a humiliation to the husband, for his inability to fend for his household. Norar's husband soon uncovers Norar's contribution to their instability and is angered by embarrassment. In the virtue of self-worth, Nora abandons social norms-and her family. Modernists address A Dollr's House as a feminist literature, using the playr's neutral perspective of women as independent, dignified, and a contributing member of society.

Henrik Ibsen challenged the social depiction of women, controversy sparked as audiences hated and praised feminine independence through the use of female characters. Critics claimed, the play deterred women through selfish acts of the abandonment for self-growth. The consideration of A Dollr's House as a feminist play is dependent of the standards a society holds as feminist. In 1800r's a feminist ideology was perceived as the empowerment of women as nurturing and loyal to her household in comparison to the modern definition of feminism as the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes. The modern ideology of feminism reflects Henrik Ibsenr's moral values of humanism an ideology that disregards genders and emphasizes the injustices embarked by all; despite oner's age, race, or gender. In other words, Ibsen perceived his literary work as much more than a depiction of a woman, his workr's intention was to portray the injustice that anyone may confront. He proclaims his work as humanist, that coincidentally is embarked by a feminist role.

Disregarding Ibsens intentions, A Dollr's House embodies feminist ideologies. The exposure of the injustice done to a woman , and the response she has.As a woman , Nora, claims individuality through her establishment of independence as a contributing member of society. Norar's acts of servitude to her family received a negative backlash from her husband due to pride. It is then when Nora chose to not only abandoned her family but her squeal marriage with Torvald. Nora illustrated ger relationship as being with Torvald is a little like being with papa," (2.217) reflecting her sentiments of inferiority within her marriage. The granted feminine critical-mind, unintentionally empowers a social revolution against the depiction of women as dolls.

Despite the authorr's intentions, A Dolls House left the audiences -in the 1800r's- in dismay. Nora received criticism because of her inability to endure feminine responsibilities. Her characteristic rejected the ideal women, which wear on her persona in the eyes of traditional values. The audience believes Nora's demand for justice disillusioned the expected role of a woman. The modern response to Ibsen humanist literature is of feminist persie. The neutrality of gender abilities diminished the social issue of inequality, Directed towards a culture of male-domination, the play endorses feminism through the neutrality of genders.

Did you like this example?

From A Dolls House To Dolls Home. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

An Idea of Strong Actions of Nora

In Henick Ibsenr's story, Ibsen attacks the issue of social normative during the time period of the play and an unlikely story of how Nora breaks those standards. A Dollr's House displays a wealthy family with a typical domestic system with a working husband and a stay at home mom and how one problem changed that whole lifestyle. Throughout the story, Nora displays herself as a dynamic character through her change in the feelings of her role in her family, her change in her view of her marriage, and a change on how she should view her place in the world. At the beginning of the play, a typical household in 1879 where the husband does most of the work while the wife stays at home and her purpose is to care for the children. Before the play begins When one of Torvaldr's workers Krogstad believes his job is in danger, he reveals to Nora that he is in possession of a contract that Nora forged her fatherr's signature and threatens to blackmail her. Nora tries to reason with Torvald but he dislikes Krogstad for all the things that Nora has done behind his back. Dr. Rank, Torvaldr's best friend, reveals he will be dying soon and confesses his love for Nora which catches her by surprise. Torvald eventually fires Krogstad because he cannot stand being in his presence. Krogstad storms to the house demanding an explanation for why he was fired and leaves the letter exposing Nora. Nora is able to keep Torvald away from the letter for 31 hours and sends Mrs. Linde to go talk to Krogstad. Krogstad and Mrs. Linde rekindle their romance while letting Torvald see the letter to try to help Nora see how bad their marriage is. Once Torvald reads the letter and soon tells Nora he cant raise her kids, the maid brings the contract and Torvald rips it up and apologizes to her. Nora has a moment of self-realization and decides to leave Torvald as she believes he treats her like a doll. While Nora has this moment of realization, one of her first big changes is the way she views her role in her family. While Nora does experience many changes throughout the play, one of her big changes is how she views her role in her family. For the time period, it is often regarded as that the man is the one who works while the woman stays at home and raises the kids. In Act One Norar's main focus is taking care of her kids and Torvald believes that if she does immoral actions that her children will become corrupt (27). Norar's role is clearly stated by Torvald as just raising the kids and making sure that they become productive people and not corrupted. After Norar's secret comes out and Torvald tries to convince Nora to stay, Nora takes a completely different stance on her family. As Nora is about to leave she states, Good-by, Torvald. I don't see the little ones. I know they are in better hands than mine. As I am now, i can be of no use to them (71). Nora goes from being the only one raising the kids to completely leaving them to Torvald. This is an example of a big change in her character as she completely goes against the social normative of the time. While not only does she have a large change in her role of the family, she takes on a large change in the view of her marriage. Throughout the play, Nora goes from staying at home and taking care of the kids as a wife in the family to taking control of her life and walking out on Torvald. Nora is seen in Act 1 making all of her decisions dependant on Torvald and always being dominated on by him. When Nora tries to reason with Torvald about keeping Krogstad on at the bank, he completely dismisses her opinion and automatically assumes that he is right. When she tries to question why he thinks a certain way he dominates the conversation and files for Krogstadr's dismissal (36). Her obedience to Torvald is greatly shown as she never disagrees with him or tries to have a serious conversation with him about trying to keep Krogstad. Rather he does what he feels is right and doesnt give Nora the time of day. After Torvald tries to take back his words and believe everything is alright, Nora has another change in her personality. When Torvald tries to deny Nora from leaving she says, It is no use forbidding me anything any longer. I will take with me what belongs to myself. I will take nothing from you, either now or later (68). Nora standing up to Torvald brings a big change in her character as she goes from being dependent to standing up to Torvaldr's dominance and doing orders against his will. While not only does her view on their marriage change, her view on Torvald changes during the play. Nora displays herself as a dynamic character mainly through her change in how she views Torvald. Nora always viewed Torvald with great respect and obedience as she respected him for getting a promotion at the bank. However, she always feared Torvald finding out about her secret and goes to any lengths to prevent it seen through her continued commitment trying to keep Krogstad employed. However, her views completely change after Torvald lashes out on her for her forgery and she begins to realize her feelings for him as he tries to make up for the mistake he just made. Nora states, When I was at home with Papa he told me his opinions about everything, and so I had the same opinions; and if I differed from him I concealed the fact because he would not have liked it. He called me his doll-child. And when I came to you I just transferred hands (66). Her comparison to her as a doll in Torvaldr's hands is a complete change to her ways of following Torvald before and she has a complete change in her feelings towards Torvald. Nora displays herself as a dynamic character not only through her change with Torvald but also with her change in her view of her marriage and her view on her family. A Dollr's House, while not directly stated as a feminist story, proves to be one through the strong actions of Nora. Norar's choice to leave everything behind is completely different for her time and she proves that feminism did exist early on. Nora proves time and time again that she is the story's dynamic character through her many changes in the story.

Did you like this example?

An Idea Of Strong Actions Of Nora. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Significant Role of Characters in Doll’s House

Contents

A doll's house
Conclusion

A doll's house

This play revolves around main characters like Nora Helmer and her husband Torvald Helmer. This play took place on Christmas Eve when Nora Helmer enters the house by carrying gifts for her children. At that time her husband has been promoted to bank manager and they can now afford more comfortable life. The character of Torvald is very important in this play and his role is manager of bank where he does important decisions and his wife convinces him to make this decisions. There are other characters like Dr Rank who is a friend of Torvald and Mrs. Linde who is a friend of Nora and Krogstad who is a low level employee in that bank where Torvald is a manager. The roles of all these characters are critical and their roles affect the relation of Nora and Torvald.

The turning point of this relation starts when Mrs. Linde after so many years come to meet Nora and she told her about death of her husband and she asked her to convince her husband in getting job in bank for her. At that time Nora revealed her secret to Mrs. Linde that when her husband was sick then she illegally borrowed money for the trip to Italy and her husband Torvald is unaware of that. This shows that how critical role it is for Nora. This secret has played a important part in this play and at the end it resulted to end the relation of Nora and Torvald when Torvald came to know about it by a letter from Krogstad because it was Krogstad who arranged that money for Nora and when he came to know that his position is in danger in bank as Torvald warned him that he would be given a resignation letter and after that Krogstad blackmailed Torvaldr's wife to convince her husband but she failed and so Krogstad revealed the secret of Nora.

After reading the play, it can be predicted that this play is based on woman role and this woman is Nora. Her role is critical in this play and her role is very important. The way she illegally borrowed money for a trip is the only reason to create misunderstandings between her and other characters like Krogstad. Her friend Mrs. Linde did not help her in this matter and she decided to be with Krogstad in the end. It shows that Nora was empty inside and she was helpless as well. The roles of other characters affect her role as Mrs. Linde come to her so that she may asked her husband to hire Mrs. Linde as an employee in bank. And Krogstad come to her to blackmail her to reveal her secret if she would not convince her husband to maintain his position in the bank. So overall, she was forced by other characters to do these things.

At the point when Ibsen portrays this as a human rights story, I think it is on the grounds that there are a few people in need that those living in solace possess no energy for. Ibsen would positively have known about a "lady's place" inside society (and this play cause an incredible mix when it was first performed in front of an audience), notwithstanding, he sees past that to the requirements of dads and widows, moreover. He makes a strong contention for indicating more solid concern and support for those in need by lifting up the issues of those less blessed in the play.

The theme of the play fills in as a reasonable outline of woman's rights. A Doll is means the situation of a lady in the family. A noteworthy character utilized to depict is Nora. She is hitched to Helmer who alludes to her as a negligible doll instead of a spouse. Nora is alluded by her better half as a warbler, a songbird, a squirrel, names that propose that she is so unimportant to her.

The female characters of Nora, Mrs. Linde and the Nurse all need to forfeit themselves to be acknowledged by the general public, or even to have the capacity to experience their lives sensibly. Nora not just forfeits herself in acquiring cash to spare Torvald, however she loses the kids she without a doubt adores when she chooses to move out of the marriage and seek after her very own character. Mrs. Linde penances the genuine romance of her life, Krogstad, and weds a man she doesn't love with the end goal to help her destitute relatives. The Nurse needs to surrender her own youngster to take care of other individuals' kids, with the end goal to achieve some money related solidness. In Ibsen's time, ladies who had ill-conceived babies were disparaged, while the men dependable proceeded onward with existence with no preference. Nora's deserting of her youngsters can likewise be translated as a demonstration of generosity. In spite of Nora's extraordinary love for her kids showed by her communication with them and her incredible dread of defiling them, she relinquishes them. Nora emphatically trusts that the caretaker would be a decent mother and that abandoning her kids was to their greatest advantage.

Conclusion

All the characters play their roles significantly in this play and all the characters affects other except the character of Dr Rank. Because he is the one who has no interest that what other thinks about him. This play revolves around the main character which is Nora and her secret. And in the end when her secret reveals, she finds herself strength to leave. Ibsen settles the play by portraying every one of the ladies characters as women's activists who relinquish their 'doll' lives to leave like free, huge, and capable in their social orders. Nora, Linde, among others, start as slaves however end a women's activists. We can tell that Nora cherished her kids however she needed to forfeit and abandon them. The other significant job is the familial obligation. This is decisively a desire for the general public. Nora's takeoff is viewed with a peculiar eye from the general public since she isn't relied upon to take off. For the most part, ladies are taken to be mediocre and are henceforth given the jobs taken to be second rate.

Did you like this example?

Significant Role Of Characters In Doll's House. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Symbols in Doll’s House Novel

In most languages, each object is assigned a gender, typically either masculine or feminine, which determines how sentences are structured. In A Doll's House, certain objects serve as symbols that develop the theme of the play and portrays hidden aspects open to interpretation by the reader, similar to most works in literary drama. These symbols have been assigned masculine or feminine attributes and the gender determines how Nora feels towards her role as a woman in society. In A Doll's House, the feminine and masculine attributes of the symbols caused Nora, the protagonist, to either conform to her gender standards or sparked the desire to do the opposite and not accept the one she has been given, developing characteristics of her own instead, during her struggle to find herself as an individual. The most evident object in A Doll's House is a dollhouse itself and the gender typically attributed to the object is predominantly feminine as dolls are seen as being toys for girls. Dollhouses tend to be seen as fragile and a very isolated setting that is full of loneliness and conducive to internal monologues digesting what the perceived superior authority is promoting. Dollhouses have a closed back panel and an open front which symbolizes an access to escape yet the backbone of society is so beautifying that one feels compelled to be a prisoner. Throughout the play, Nora is treated like a doll as if she be put on a shelf to be controlled by all the men in her life, continuously referencing the control exerted over her by her husband and her father which could be seen as playing with her, as one would with a doll: Nora: It's true Torvald. When I lived at home with Papa, he used to tell me his opinion about everything, and so I had the same opinion. If I thought differently, I had to hide it from him, or he wouldn't have liked it. He called me his little doll, and he used to play with me just as I played with my dolls. Then I came to live in your house - (pg ). Nora finally realizes the importance placed on their appearance in society by her husband is not more important than her own happiness and personal identity. In her feminine dollhouse she fulfilled her role that society assigned to women and this negatively impacted her personal identity as she continuously conformed to societal standards pertaining to women. The dollhouse symbol portrays how unreliable appearances are and how women sacrifice their personal identity and self-discovery to conform to gender standards assigned by society. Nora develops her identity throughout the play which can be seen through the dollhouse symbolism. In the beginning of the play Nora gives her children toys, specifically giving her daughter a doll: ...and a doll and a dollyr's bedstead for Emmy,--they are very plain, but anyway she will soon break them in pieces (pg ). This is interesting as Nora seems to resent the control exerted over her by the men in her life but giving her daughter a doll suggests that she is raising her daughter to conform to the life that Nora is dissatisfied by and her mentioning Emmy breaking the toys foreshadows future events. In Act 3, the male dominant society in which men seek to benefit themselves while neglecting their wives is seen when Torvald says he will change to which Nora replies that he will only change if his doll was taken away. The feminine attributes of the dollhouse show that Nora desires to leave her husband but cant because she feels compelled to conform to her role in society. Another significant object assigned masculine attributes instead is the letterbox which causes Nora to want to break out of her role as a woman and instead discover her own identity and the letterbox clearly defines male and female roles. The letterbox is assigned masculine attributes as in A Doll's House, the letterbox is a source of secrecy and only Torvald having access to the letterbox, as only he holds the key, showcases his societal role as a controlling husband: Torvald: Someone has been at the lock. What can it mean? I should never have thought the maid-- here is a broken hairpin. Nora, it is one of yours. Nora: Then it must have been the children (pg 60). The masculine attributes of the letterbox causes Nora to begin to develop her own identity and not conform to her role in society. Instead of staying in her dollhouse she attempts to find her freedom, her freedom being locked in the letterbox and Torvald is the only one who has access to the locked letterbox, symbolizing his control over the whole house. Specifically discussing the letters in the letterbox, they symbolize the truths that the characters cannot get away from as once someone sends a letter, it cannot be taken back.

Did you like this example?

Symbols In Doll's House Novel. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

About the Witch Trials in the Crucible

How do the witch trials empower individuals who were previously powerless?

The witch trials gave people power over people that they wouldn’t have had any legal or ethical way. The witch trails propped up flawed, generally not good people, and that’s who was accusing people most of the time. In this essay we will look at people who the witch trails elevated to previously intangible heights of power, popularity, and respect and to finish I will talk about some examples of modern witch-hunts that are happening today or recently. My family used to have this thing called “Bella’s the boss” where she would choose what pizza we had, what shows and movies we watched, and the music we listened to in the car (what parents do to keep the youngest one part of the group, am I right?) and when we’d say “But Dad, this show is better”, he’d say “Bella’s the boss. Needless to say when she got old enough, and the power was stripped away, it led to many heated discussions by 4-year-old Bella. This is similar to what happened in the crucible, as you’ll see if you continue reading this essay.

Parris is a hypocrite. He is a crooked leader of the local church in the village, and at one point lots of people would come and listen to him talk about the fiery pits of hell, and after a while people stopped showing up because they don’t need that kind of negativity in their life, but to himself he’s infallible, so the only natural reason people weren’t showing up was because the devil was leading them astray, when in reality, they’re sick and tired of hearing that shrew of a man preach about damnation and eternal suffering. The witch trials elevated him to a new level. He was seen almost as a savior... A deliverer from evil if you will. He was part of the holy court. This position of power elevated him to a position to get back at people who were talking bad about him behind his back by him accusing them of dealings with the devil, and subsequently ending their lives. He would not have had that opportunity otherwise.

Abigail Williams was a maid pretty much before these events, and some might argue the whole thing was to win back the recognition of John Proctor, the man she feels is her true love or whatever. She had no say in almost anything (or respect), but once she started saying that she could see things and people started believing her, there was no going back. People thought of her as a diviner, and the opinion of the people in her village changed strikingly. She was zero to hero, in a society where at one point women didn’t have much roles in a society. She was power crazy, seeing how she didn’t do much to earn that power in the first place, and that led to the events of the rest of the book. She used to be powerless, and then over the course of almost a week, she became almost a deity.

If you thought witch hunts were a thing of the past, you thought wrong. There have been quite a few “witch hunts” in recent years. The red scare was against communism, the persecution of republicans and supporters of Donald Trump, and the #metoo movement (not saying this is bad necessarily, but if you stick around I’ll explain). These events have empowered people who would not have been so “infamous” had this not come about. Look at former Senator Joseph McCarthy. He probably wouldn’t have gone down in history as anything more than a senator had he not done the infamous McCarthy legislation, thereby attaching his name to a permanent piece of American history. People who persecute republicans and supporters of the republican party (or vice versa) are kind of giving themselves power over people, because they think that they are better than them in a way, and that they have a reason to persecute them, and the me to accusers are empowered because a single allegation could ruin someone’s career.

I’m not saying that their stories aren’t credible I’m just saying that not all of them are true. Sometimes I’m sure it becomes kind of a “if we don’t believe them, we will be seen as sexist” or vice versa. there are documented examples of women completely fabricating allegations just to screw people over and ruin their lives (see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/03/29/a-woman-says-she-was-raped-by-3-rugby-players-the-jury-disagreed/?utm_term=.f6b65c94fc7e by Amanda Erickson) and that can undoubtedly give people a sense of power, especially if they can dethrone someone rich and powerful (as is the case with Harvey Weinstein [which turned out to be true, which is good because then he deserved it]) or a CEO of a company or whatever. Sometimes they don’t investigate, and are often times guilty until proven innocent, leaving the once powerful at the mercy of the court of public opinion.

The witch trials have empowered people who were otherwise powerless. They gave them say in legal places and things they normally wouldn’t have had in the first place, and they abused that newfound power to get back at all those who had wronged them in the past, and because of that, many innocents lost their lives or careers.

Did you like this example?

About The Witch Trials In The Crucible. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Characters in the Crucible

Contents

Williams
John Proctor
Parris
Reverend Hale

Williams

I am the rightful partner to John Proctor. Elizabeth does not love him like I do. I will kill her for John. She shame my name in this town and she makes everyone think bad of me. I will show her. John is mine. He does not see the righteous in me. I am his and he is mine. My Uncle doesnt love me either. He only cares of his name in this town. He doesnt even care of his daughter as much as he cares about himself. He is a selfish man. I do evil work here but no one suspects anything of me. I act as a accuser and accused. I accuse my enemies so they may never talk another breath of me. I accused my Uncler's slave Tituba. She face a terrible whip that day. I take that sight to heart. It appeals me. I accused Goody Proctor. She be hanged soon for her witchery. Thatr's what the town thinks. But I want that snake to get out of the way of me and John.

John Proctor

This town is filled with lies. Reverend Parris is a selfish man. He keeps everyone in favor of him that he can tell lies to them and they will believe him no matter who tries to stand up to him. He tries to shame my name in this town. He shames me and my family. He thinks that he can do anything he wants. And his niece Abigail is another story. She sinned with me and she wont leave me alone. I have a wife Elizabeth and she doesnt like Abigail, she suspects she tries to bewitch her. I do believe her too. If anything Abigail is the witch, she is a snake and a liar also. She will do anything to harm my wife, even cause harm to herself if she have too. She is just a child yet she acts like she knows what love is or what being mature is. She does not yet see the sins she is doing. But I will not let her harm my wife or my family ever, she will never lay a hand on them as long as I live.

Parris

I am the authority in this town. Everyone is to give me respect or I will have them put in Jail. Especially John Proctor. That man is a liar and a tyrant to this town. He does not know what it means to be in power of things. He is a dirty farmer. What does he know besides planting crops and raking his grass. Nothing I say, Nothing! He threatens my position with his lies. Even Reverend Hale believes John in certain ways. Also my daughter Betty, has come down with a strange illness. The town believes it to be witchery. I fear for my reputation that the town will think I had something to do with this. I see it fit that the town knows who they are applying this situation too. I will keep my respect and I will make it known that I will not be misconstructed of my position.

Reverend Hale

This town is corrupt. There are lies spreading about and endless feuds between people. I have come here to help with the talk of witchery and its victims. I started with a young girl named Betty she seem to be trapped by the Devil. I have untangled the hold of the Devilr's hold on this girl and also their slave Tituba. But I also feel that there is corruption in the Minister Parris. He seems to care more of his reputation than his own daughter. I yet not know what foul play is going on but I suspect that people are beginning to think that the devil is in most of the people in this town. We have had court hearing for people that all of the sudden have been accused of witchery. But I believe that these people are innocent. They have enemies and they are being accused of nothing more than a person with hatred towards them. These people did not do anything wrong. I suspect that there might not even be witchery either. This town is falling apart and I do not want to be here when it does for I might have my own enemies now.

Did you like this example?

Characters In The Crucible. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Haler’s Statement about Life in the Crucible

Written by Arthur Miller in 1953, The Crucible is one of the most well-known plays in American history. The author depicts a series of dreadful and scary witch-hunts and trials in Salem, Massachusetts during the seventeenth century, in which numerous innocent people were ruthlessly prosecuted. The play is regarded as a literary reflection of the hysteria about communism sweeping through America in the 1950s. In Act IV of the play, Hale gives a speech about life and death, stating that no principle may justify the taking of a life and pleading to Elizabeth Proctor to convince John Proctor to lie and confess so that he could survive. Personally, I do not agree with Haler's statement about life, because he is asking an individual to give up his faith and morality and betray his true heart in order to merely live. Besides, the purpose behind these words may be that he selfishly hopes to relieve his guilt by trying to save others lives. Hale enters the play as a benevolent, naive, and candid witch-hunter who helps Parris to conduct examinations on her daughter. He comes with strong faith and resolution, which is shown in his firm statement to Parris and his family Have no fear now”we shall find this devil out if he has come among us, and I mean to crush him utterly if he has shown his face (11). Evidently, he has an unyielding belief in witchcraft at the beginning of the play and is convinced that his counsel is needed to eradicate the sin and restore peace in the town. However, his belief, unfortunately, crumbles in a short time. After talking to John and Mary Warren, Hale starts to question himself about his judgement in witch trials and gradually realizes that he has been manipulated to help the authority to prosecute the innocents. By Act IV, he has completely lost his belief in his initial endeavor to help the people in Salem and lost faith in the court authority as well. This is when his purpose starts to go astray. At this point, he desperately wants to compensate for what he has done not only to realize redemption of other peopler's lives but also to rescue his own soul from sinfulness. His line of for if he is taken I count myself his murderer(55) reflects that Hale is afraid to take responsibility. He then preaches to Elizabeth that life is God?s most precious gift, and that God damns a liar less than he that throws his life away for pride (55), showing that he really wishes to save peopler's lives and make up for what he has done wrong. However, he only worths sympathy but not respect because he chooses to comply and live by betraying oner's soul. Further, despite Haler's good heart, he is not rather sophisticated to realize that confession alone is not enough to alter the situation and that his effort is already late. It is clear that Danforth and the theocracy would only be satisfied if the accused people would name more of their fellows, and Haler's effort seems pathetic and useless. This aspect makes him more of a victim of the society a tragic character that struggles to minimize his sin and guilt. In conclusion, Haler's claim that nothing may suppress the value of life seems weak and unconvincing from my perspective. As a guileless good-hearted witch-hunter who is used by the theocracy to prosecute innocent people, he is broken and hopeless in the end, trying to realize salvation of others and himself no matter what the price is. This is why he tries so hard to convince innocent people to lie and confess so as to save their lives. This statement is what he uses to justify his self-interest; therefore I do not agree with it.

Did you like this example?

Haler's Statement About Life In The Crucible. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

John Proctor Struggles against Abigail Williams in the Crucible

Stories are such fascinating subjects, as they seem to create worlds in a completely new universe or be set in the past so long ago that people can no longer remember it. In every story, there is protagonists and antagonists. The antagonist always go against the protagonist, bringing the conflict in the story. Along with the fact of bringing conflict into the story, he or she also has a highly significant role in the development of the protagonist. The story than can end in two different ways. It can end with the protagonist finally defeating the antagonist after overcoming both physical and mental obstacles.

The other way is that after struggling throughout his or her life, the protagonist, in the end, can not stop the antagonist and dies or otherwise becomes unable to oppose the antagonist. The novel, The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, is the latter type of a story as the protagonist, John Proctor, struggles against Abigail Williams, who opposes him in numerous ways such as ruining his wife, manipulating people and situations, and avoiding all accusations at fault in any way possible, showing her to be the main antagonist of the story; all of this is needed for Miller to show the true depravity of human nature, and in return, the so-called good does not triumph over evil.

Abigail reveals traits of antagonism when she tries to get rid of Elizabeth Proctor, John Proctor's wife, in order to try to keep him for herself, showing the depravity of humans. In the argument between Betty and Abigail when Betty finally woke up, it is revealed to the audience that [Abigail] drank blood...to kill John Proctor's wife(18). While Abigail did not succeed in killing Elizabeth Proctor with that method, the fact stands that she did such an act with malicious thoughts in mind. It showed her need to cause conflict and get rid of things in her way through any means possible, although the success rate was very low.

Even though it didn't seem to do much in the whole of the story, it was perhaps the very starting point of the cause of the witch trial hysteria. Once Abigail realizes that the charm to kill Goody Proctor by drinking blood didn't work, she then gets a warrant for [Elizabeth Proctor]...[charging] a cruel and murder on Abigail(69,72). Abigail shows her ruthlessness and lack of empathy through these actions, as she gets the wife of the man she so calls loves in order to try to get together with him, although she was repeatedly rejected by John Proctor previously. Through these actions, she creates one of the main events of the book, as John Proctor later does anything and everything he can in order to get his wife proved innocent and released from jail. Abigail's need for getting rid of Elizabeth Proctor shows that Abigail is the antagonist of this book as it shows her trying to get rid of someone very dear to the protagonist, John Proctor, and thus, creates a conflict between them.

Throughout the book, Abigail shows more proof of being the antagonist as she manipulates the people around her for her own personal gain and other's misery, verifying the opinion of Miller that human nature is corrupt. The person Abigail most commonly manipulates is Mary Warren, who is likely an easy target due to the fact that she is a naive, lonely girl. One time Abigail has done such manipulations is when Mary testified against Abigail on the orders of John Proctor. Abigail pretends that she sees the familiar spirit of Mary and it attacks her. Knowing that she would be hanged for witchcraft on the accusations of Abigail, Mary then tries to save herself by saying Proctor is the Devil's man(110) and that he manipulated her instead of Abigail.

This act shows how far Abigailr's manipulations can go, as she caused the man she wanted to be with getting accused of dealing with the devil. It also further along with the trials John Proctor has to go through as now both him and his wife are imprisoned on the accusation of witchcraft. However, Abigail's manipulations are also showed before this event has occurred. It happened when she saw Mary sew a poppet for Elizabeth Proctor and stick the needle into it to keep her safe. Once Abigail saw those actions, she created a plot in order to convince the court that Elizabeth tried to kill her with a needle stuck in her stomach with the claim being that [Elizabeth Proctor's] familiar spirit pushed it in(71). With such manipulations set in place, very few people would believe in it being set up especially because of the time period the play was set in, as almost everyone during that time was superstitious with the beliefs of witchcraft and other highly illogical things.

The manipulations show Abigailr's lack of morals as she, without hesitation, made others think that someone attempted murder with witchcraft, knowing that it would only end in death for the accused. It reveals that Abigail is the antagonist as she repeatedly exploits other's weaknesses in order to fulfill her own goals, and in return, create the conflict in the play as John Proctor tries to stop Abigail and make everyone see that she is in the wrong, not the ones being accused by her.

In order to avoid the consequences of her mistakes, Abigail makes it so others take the blame or run away from her problems, which both affirms her position as the antagonist and the perverseness of human nature. This is first shown in the beginning of the play, as Reverend Parris suspects of her to be doing witchcraft in the woods along with dancing. In order to avoid the consequences of her actions, she lies and says that she [goes] back to Jesus [and] saw Sarah Good with the Devil(45) among many other names. A truly good person would accept their punishments for their actions, and as shown, Abigail does not. Instead, she blames others in an attempt for them to take on her punishment, and it works.

Everyone in town is driven into hysteria as people are being accused everywhere and soon, dozens of people are contained in jail to be hanged soon. This is the very start of the conflict in the play, and it is due to Abigail and the other such girls that danced in the woods trying to get out of punishment. Later again in the play, it is shown again that Abigail does not face the repercussions of her actions face on. As she realized her actions caused John Proctor to be jailed and later be sentenced to death, instead of confessing, she ran off in fear to keep in Salem(117). Her running off shows how much responsibility she has, which is none. She practically started the craze of witchcraft in Salem single-handedly and ran off before it was realized by the other citizens. Her lack of responsibility for her actions show how far humanity has declined as she caused many to die and yet does not stand up for her actions, which makes her seem to be the antagonist of the play as in the end, John Proctor dies due to her actions.

Miller shows how depraved humanity has gotten by how the antagonist, Abigail Williams, acts in order to create the conflict with the protagonist, John Proctor; she tries to get rid of his wife, manipulate everyone and everything, and in the end, runs away from the aftermath of the chaos she has created. An antagonist is someone who opposes the protagonist and as a result, brings the conflict into the story. The antagonist makes the protagonist develop throughout the story as he or she goes through mental and physical obstacles in order to defeat the antagonist. Unfortunately, not all of the time does the protagonist succeed in his or her actions; sometimes in the end, the antagonist wins.

Did you like this example?

John Proctor struggles against Abigail Williams In The Crucible. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Religion and Beliefs in Political System in the Crucible

Our founding fathers of our nation decided that this nation was not going to be governed by belief and faith. They actually decided that they would separate the church from the state because that way they would rule from actual facts and not belief and religion. The person that came up with this idea was Thomas jefferson. Also the first amendment of the constitution of the united states says that congress shouldnt make any law according to religion. The separation of the church and the state goes back to to January 1,1802. There is also another section in the constitution under article six that states that no religious test should be used to qualify for office or gain trust in the United States. Also the separation of the state from the church also goes back to secularism. But the main reason that the our founders chided for the state to be separated was so other events didn't happen like in the crucible that people became superstitious about religious events against witchcraft and thought that everything that happened and wasn't good or unlucky was because of witchcraft. All of these events ended up in a lot of innocent people dying and trials that just lead to more problems and finally the ruler of the town just called it off because the people started to make a assumptions from his wife. So that people don't go through all of these things and actually could govern according to actual facts and beliefs and ideas, the founders of our country separated the church from the state. I believe that Thomas Jefferson was trying to separate the church from the state because he was not trying to make a country with a particular religion but instead free from belief so that people could come here be able have freedom of expression without the government interfering. Also another important thing was that Jefferson didnt believe that the government would be able to work even if it was influenced a tiny little bit by a religion or it's leaders. Nothing has really changed since 1802. As far as 2018 religious things are kept away from government positions and building prayers services are also kept away from schools. I believe that we have done a great job keeping the church separated from the state because we as a country have fought to be free from any kind of ideas but only the right ones. Another example that I have is that he have evolved a lot since the time of the Salem witch trials and really have moved away from beliefs and have actually given the benefit of the thought to the government because they have always sticked with the scientific way of things really go in depth to figure out why certain things actually happen and tried to use facts to prove things not just because we believe things happen because we are cursed. I believe that as a society have have really changed over time have seen how somethings are just to silly. Another example that I believe that we have been successful at separating the church from the state is we have allowed the government to rule with their ideas and also allowed the church to have its own opinions and ways of looking at things but at the same time let the government rule and everyone is happy. The people that support the government follow the ideas and opinions the government makes and the people that follow the church listen to the church and says as it say. I truly believe we have been successful so that both system work together. But like always there are somethings that the government disagrees with the church so they have to work together to come to an agreement that makes both parties happy. There are also times were religion and beliefs have intertwined in our political system. One topic that is very big and important in todayr's world is abortion. This topic interferes with religion because we believe as Catholics that it is the action of killing a child. But others like the government believe that it is your choice if you want to keep your baby and raise it or have and abortion and get rid of it. There is evidence that a baby has life when it is a cell and starts to grow in a mother. Another thing is that abortion is literally killing a baby. Another example that other beliefs outside of religion have interfered with our justice system is in the deal with the Salem witch trials and how they hanged a much of people because they didnt confess that they were witches when in reality were not really witches at all.

Did you like this example?

Religion And Beliefs In Political System In The Crucible. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Criticism the Corrupt Politics by Arthur Miller

It was the time of McCarthyism, 1953. Fear of Communism had reached a hysteria, and the nation was consumed by the widespread terror of Communism and its sympathizers. In this period of lost trust and friendships, an American playwright Arthur Miller felt so personally affected by the accusations and mass hysteria that he traveled to Salem by himself and began writing The Crucible. In this play, Arthur Miller parallels and criticizes the corrupt politics of the era by inserting characters who use logical fallacies in order to show the flawed reasoning behind the Salem witch trials and the Red Scare. One of these logical fallacies exhibited throughout the play is ad hominem, where instead of using evidence to back up an argument, an irrational personal attack is used to discredit the accused. Either out of malice or otherwise, the people who rely on this logical fallacy as evidence do not have the intent of proving the truth, but to justify their beliefs. In The Crucible, where piety is greatly valued, Reverend Parris, exclaims that Proctor is [...] a Christian that will not come to church but once a month! (III,118). Parris, who is depicted as weak, paranoid, and self-centered, avoids the argument by questioning Proctorr's Christian sincerity. Being an authority figure of the court, he gains advantage against his opponent this way, wanting others to see Procter as an enemy of the court and discredit his arguments for being un-Christian. Parris by using this weak argument against Proctor, rather than addressing the issues, only shows his lack of ethics and sense of duty to seek the truth. Another example of this would be the court being willfully ignorant to unrelated facts. Without hard evidence or proof, the court links two irrelevant events together as evidence, creating a false cause and effect fallacy. Mary Warren, an accuser of the trials and the servant of John Proctor, states that Goody Osburn begs for bread and a cup of cider, but claims whenever [Mary] turned her away empty, she mumbled(II,118). Immediately after she walked away, [Mary] thought [her] guts would burst for two days after, to which Governor Danforth immediately states that Goody Osburn was mumbling curses at Mary (II,119-122). Danforth, being the Deputy Governor, holds the duty to oversee the court. He fails to examine evidence critically and assumes that since the two events happened chronologically, that there was a correlation. However, correlation does not equal causation, therefore Maryr's stomach ache was just a coincidence that happened after she turned Goody Osburn away. In complete investigations and blatant assumptions happened like these happened too throughout post-war America, where people of the public eye were often suspected of being Communist or sympathizers. The investigation of Communist activities was mainly conducted by the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), where suspects were pressured into being witnesses and providing names and information. Frequently, suspects who refused to answer were automatically labeled as a Red without any further investigation, stating that if an individual doesn't take active measures against Communism, they must be supporting Communism. This is an example of the either-or fallacy, best described by Danforth who stated that "[...]a person is either with th[e] court or he must be counted against it. There will be no road between"(III, 170). Danforth presents an illusion of only having 2 choices, where if one is right the other must be wrong. With his puritan logic, he believes that an innocent person has no reason to be afraid of the court. Therefore, anyone against the court would be guilty. Without a doubt, this false dilemma caused many fatal and false prosecutions throughout history and leads to very simplistic, extreme and often unjust laws Witch hunts like these are catastrophic, yet people refrain themselves from opposing the majority despite knowing that it is wrong. This is bandwagoning, a psychological phenomenon that causes people to sway a certain direction because other people are doing it as well. Mary Warren fell for this phenomenon despite knowing Abigail Williamr's manipulations of the court. She rushed to Abigail and proclaimed Proctor as [...] the Devilr's man! instead (III, 500). Mary came up with this false accusation stating that she will go [his] way no more! (III, 515) as she crumbled under the pressure and mockery she received the court, succumbing to the herd mentality. Being the only solid evidence Procter has against the court, she pushes the responsibility of going against the court to himself. The fear of prosecution of being a witch motivated Mary further to join the popular majority. A ?Crucible is a severe test or trial, such as the Salem Witch Trials and the Red Scare. The evidence of these witch hunts was illogical and unreasonable. From circular reasoning to bandwagoning, these are just some examples of logical fallacies in The Crucible. Understanding these errors of logic can help strengthen an argument, making it more credible and prevent mass hysterias. Throughout this essay, it is shown that the work of Arthur Miller is not just historical relic, but a carefully designed lesson for us to learn. It teaches the importance of analysis and warn us against modern day witch hunts and senseless accusations.

Did you like this example?

Criticism The Corrupt Politics By Arthur Miller. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

The Affect of Power in the Play the Crucible

Power doesn't corrupt people, people corrupt power (William Gaddis). Puritanism was a powerful religious, social, and political order in New England colonial life. In a Puritan society, humans wanted to reform the Christian church and believed that the devil had servants that worked for him on Earth. Arthur Millerr's play, The Crucible, explains the persecution of persons falsely accused of being witches in Salem, Massachusetts, in 1692. The play portrays power and how that power shifts among the characters. It shows which characters have power and how power can overtake people causing them to abuse it for material gain, self-preservation, or revenge. Two minor characters, Samuel Parris and Thomas Putnam, acquire power; one desperate to keep it and one hungers for more. Power and authority are the epitome of this Patriarchal Society where men control all: wives, children, servants, courts, and the church. Reverend Samuel Parris holds an important position of authority and places himself even higher than others in the community. He is a weak man, obsessed with power and control, and throughout the play is only concerned with his reputation and money. When challenged, especially by John Proctor, Parris resents this opposition and reminds others that Proctor does not attend church on a regular basis; therefore, his opinion doesn't matter about reforms to the church. Proctor, a well-respected man in the community, is quick to point out that he dislikes Parris sermons because [he] hardly even mention[s] God any more (Miller 27). Parris is supposed to be a man of the Lord and live a simple life, but his materialistic demands on the community continue throughout the play. Using his religious position, Parris assumes that his newly made contract will support and maintain firewood to last him a lifetime. Much to his dismay, Parris is met with constant opposition and wonders why he cannot offer one proposition but there be a howling riot of argument (Miller 28). Proctor reminds Parris that his salary is sixty-six pounds, including six for firewood. When Parris expresses the need for new, gold candlesticks, Proctor once again openly disagrees and is adamant that he will not attend church in a place where he preach nothin but golden candlesticks until he had them (Miller 62). Parris fear of being put out like the cat, relieving him of his position in Salem, push him to demand the deed to his current residence (Miller 28). Never before in Salem had such a demand been made by a minister, only to be denied. Free firewood, gold candlesticks, and the deed to the house represent Parris greed for material items and his desire for power over anyone who challenges his authority. Creating chaos throughout the town, Thomas Putnam uses the witch trials to accuse others in order to buy their land and destroy their lives. Although Putnam is a wealthy, land-owning man, nothing seems to satisfy his wants and wishes. After inheriting an extravagant amount of land from his grandfather, Putnam continues to want more. He is not willing to share the land with those in need and becomes angry if anyone enters what he believes is his property. Putnam threatens Proctor that if [he] loads one oak of [his] and [hell] fight to drag it home (Miller 30). Putnam warns Proctor that if he attempts to take anything from his property, then he will have issues with Putnam. Because his brother-in-law is prevented from being voted into the office of ministers, Putnam holds a grudge against Francis Nurse. Along with gaining profit from the misfortune of his enemies, Putnam disciplines them. The only thing Putnam wants is to see people suffer; it makes him feel powerful. Hungry for revenge and to display his power, Putnam encourages his daughter, Ruth, to accuse innocent people of committing witchcraft. Giles questions Putnam about why he would use his teenage daughter to cry witchery upon George Jacobs that is now in jail, but Putnam claims that it is a lie (Miller 89). Putnamr's plan is to accuse Jacobs of being a witch, so by law, he will be forced to forfeit his property. As Putnamr's neighbors are found guilty, his acreage expands. No strong personal relationship can be found that connects Reverend Samuel Parris and Thomas Putnam; however, similarities in their hunger for power is shown throughout the play. Besides family, Putnam is one of the first people to call upon the Parrisr's house after Betty falls ill. It seems as if Putnam is there to convince Parris that witchcraft is to blame for both Bettyr's and his daughter, Ruthr's, sudden illness. Putnam encourages Parris to speak with the townspeople, blaming witches for his daughterr's sickness. At first, it seems that Putnam wants Parris to denounce the devil and have the village bless him for it, but realistically it appears that Putnam is only looking out for himself. Putnam is angry with the people of Salem for not selecting his brother-in-law as the town minister, so he is going to use Parris position of authority to seek revenge on the people in the community he feels are his enemies. Using unyielding pressure, Putnam is able to convince Parris to commit to the idea of supernatural forces, or witchery, that is the root of Bettyr's sickness. Once admitted by Reverend Parris, the stage for what becomes Salemr's witch hunt is set and Putnamr's desire for revenge and profit fall into place. Some of the primary accusations come from Putnam and are supported by Parris. These two men, among others, use their influence and power to accuse innocent people of illegal acts of witchcraft, which result in nineteen deaths by the time the trials are over. With great power comes great responsibility (Voltaire); however, few are responsible enough to remain fair. Reverend Samuel Parris and Thomas Putnam use their power as a tool that causes a lot of harm to many people in the town of Salem. Miller reveals how having too much pride in oner's self will end in your downfall or someone's demise. The Crucible shows how these two men and their search for power did not gain the respect and social status they feel they deserve and ultimately ended up the same way they began the play. Throughout history, the hunger for power has the potential to make an impact on a personr's life be it positive or negative. During the Salem Witch Trials, many lives were taken from people because of oner's pride overpowered all. No one will ever know how or if these deaths could have been prevented, but one can take the lessons learned through the characters, and use them in reality.

Did you like this example?

The Affect Of Power In The Play The Crucible. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Discussing the Similarities and Differences from the Crucible Play and Movie

Contents

Similarities Between The Crucible Play and Movie
Differences in The Crucible Book and Movie

In my essay I will be discussing the similarities and differences from the Crucible.The Crucible is written by Arthur Miller and takes place in Salem, Massachusetts. It was written in 1952 and was wrote because of McCarthyism. This book has a lot of drama involved in it and shows people turning back on whoever they could to save themselves. When reading the book and watching the movie, just like any other there is going to be some changes either added or taken away. For the main part, they do it to make it more interesting. I picked to do my essay this way because I think it will be more organized way to explain it.

Similarities Between The Crucible Play and Movie

Likewise, There is two similarities that I saw between the book and the movie which are when Abigail threatens the girls to lie or else she will do something to them and the second similarity is when abigail steals Reverend Parrisr's money. When abigail finds out they are investigating about the witchcraft situations she gets angry and tells the other girls not to confess to anything. She knew if someone said the truth they will all get in trouble and she didnt want that. She made sure no one was going to say a word and basically told them to lie. Towards the end, not everything went as she planned. As well as when she stole the money, she saw that everything was going downwards for her. She made everything go to far and locked up the person she wanted, which was John Proctor. When she saw that happened, all she wanted was to runaway from Salem with him, with the money that she took.

Differences in The Crucible Book and Movie

On the other hand, One main difference that happened was that the girls gang up on Mary Warren before turning on her in court in the movie and in the book they only turn on her in court. Basically Mary Warren goes to court to confess that everything Abigail and the girls are saying is false and that they never saw such thing as the devil. So Mary Warren goes to court with John proctor in the movie. The girls find out she was going to confess so when they got to court they turn on her to make it seem she is with the devil. Another difference is in the movie Tituba gets whipped and in the book, Reverend Parris only threatens to. When this all started and the girls get caught. They start to question them and Abigail speaks out. She had said it was all Titubar's idea and that she told them to do it. Which Abigail only blamed Tituba to save herself and basically make her suffer. Thatr's why in the movie they start to whip her telling her if she was with the devil even though she wasnt, the only to save herself was by saying she was.

Taking everything into consideration, whenever watching a movie and a book there will always be difference to make the movie or book more interesting. To me it made the movie more interesting and dramatic. Overall, both movie and book were well written and the arthur really made it to grab the reader's attention. The only thing that really bugged me was Abigail in general because she basically got away with not getting in trouble. She caused many people their lives and still got away with it. Something that I would like to know is what happened to rest of the girls. Ultimately I really like both movie and book.

Did you like this example?

Discussing The Similarities And Differences From The Crucible Play and Movie. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

The Character Abigail in the Play the Crucible

In the play, The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, the author argues/ implies that people can be easily manipulated by fear. The character, Abigail has many faults. In this paper I will explain if Abigail deserved the blame for the outcome. I will also support my argument with evidence from the play. Abigail has so many faults. Some of her faults are she craves attention, affection, interfering with others relationships, selfish, manipulative, and an amazing liar. She craves attention by influencing the minds of her “friends” with thoughts of witchcraft, and her being the whole cause of all this witchcraft stuff. She wants so much affection, for example her acting out when Elizabeth Proctor kicked Abigail out of John and Elizabeth Proctors house and practicing witchcraft to kill Elizabeth Proctor. She interferes with other relationships but her having an affair with John Proctor and her falling in love with him. She is selfish because she only cares about herself in the situation of her getting blamed for witchcraft she throws everyone under the bus to save herself. She is an amazing liar by her having all the town believe that her and the group of girls were under the “influence” of the devil so that’s the reason why they’re acting the way they are.

“ABIGAIL, with a bitter anger: Oh, I marvel how such a strong man may let such a sickly wife be PROCTOR, angered at himself as well: You'll speak nothin' of Elizabeth!” this quote relates to my second paragraph because of her attitude and her interfering with other people and being manipulative she angered proctor and interfere with their marriage he still cares for his wife and doesn’t want her named slandered. Act1 Pg. 46 “Abigail she always sings her Barbados songs, and we dance.” This quote relates to my paragraph because Abigail is lying and being manipulative she is giving her blame to Tituba by saying she sings her Barbados songs which is lie those are her witchcraft song.

Abigail’s faults are quite obvious like everything she has done and how it has effected everyone in the town. I do not think that Abigail does deserve all the blame for the outcome of the play. I think that she shouldn’t get blamed for the outcome because she has gone through a lot in her life like seeing her parents get murdered right in front of her at a very young age, and her being all alone. She does live with her uncle and has a cousin around the same age maybe a little younger but she has no parents telling her what’s wrong and what’s right. I feel like after going through the trauma that she went through that person is never the same that they once were, like you get careless and just want to ruin everything that is going right or when other people are happy you need to get in between them to ruin it. ”Proctor you know me better . Abigail I know how you clutched my back behind your house and sweated like a stallion whenever I come near! Or did I dream it? Its she put me out you cannot pretend it were you. I saw you’re your face when she put me out and you loved me then and you do now!” Proctor abby that’s a wild thing to say. This quote relates to my third paragraph because it talks about Abbigail is asking proctor how lonely and alone he feels and try’s to relate to him so they can have something in common so she can manipulate him to be with or admit he loves her she is interfering again with his marriage. Act 1 pg 33.” Abigail I never sold myself! I’m a good girl! I’m a proper girl!” This quote relates to my paragraph because Abigail is manipulating Tituba and lying to public.pg45 act1

There are many reasons why Abigail should not be blamed for everything but there are some reasons why she should too but I am more on the side that she shouldn’t be blamed. Abigail has gone through so much at such a young age, she has no one to guide her through life and I think that why she acts the way she does. Abigail has no sense from right to wrong as a result of this she should not be held responsible for her actions. I think that Abigail is upbringing has a lot to do with her actions and decisions that she makes. She caused a lot of controversy in the town with all the towns people but a lot of them don’t know her struggles she went through after her parents past away. ‘Marry warren she tried to kill me many times. goody proctor.’ This quote explains how malicious Abigail is and her trying to take everyone down with her because she is still scarred. “proctor ill whip the devil out of you”this quote shows how Abigail turned proctor against his wife.

In conclusion, Abigail should not be blamed for the outcome of the play. She has many faults all bad one some are really big and some small faults. She acts out a lot and needs attention on her all the time because she has no one to give her that kind of guidance from like a parent, family member or friend. Abigail has been through a lot in her life and this is the way she is, all the towns people including John Proctor probably doesn’t even know the struggles she went through. Abigail was an amazing lair and manipulated a lot of people throughout the play and I think that’s where people think she is to be blamed but I don’t.

Did you like this example?

The Character Abigail In The Play The Crucible. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

The Truth and Justice by Arthur Miller

How would you feel to be accused or to have people start rumors behind your back? Arthur Miller uses the theme twisting of the truth and justice to teach his audience that people blame others and become innocent. During the Salem Witch Trials and in the book which is based off of The Crucible by Arthur Miller. In the novel you can learn about how the girls were spreading lies and accusing citizens of Salem for being a witch. In this essay you will learn about how you can get accused for not doing anything and getting blamed for a problem that was caused by someone else.

First, in this paragraph you will learn about how many people cause a problem then accuse another person for starting it. One thing from The Crucible that you can compare to life is the girls in the book and play accusing the citizens of Salem of witchcraft. The girls are like people in life causing a crime/problem, then saying someone that is near did it. For example, Betty says,I saw George Jacobs with the Devil!(Page 48). This shows that the girls were falsely accusing people for no reason.

Secondly, throughout this paragraph you can learn about people getting caught then being scared about a problem that they have never caused. For example, it states, for some beneficiaries were actually not victims at all(Page 146). This proves that the beneficiaries were accused of being innocent. Most bystanders when they get caught, but really they are innocent there is nothing that they can do to prove their innocence to the authorities. For example, Giles Corey says, I never saw anything but a black hog.(History of Massachusetts). This explains that he did not see anything suspicious, but only a black hog. Most people when they get caught in the act of crime become scared, they start to run. In the process of the innocent civilian running away from the problem their consequences start to get worse or higher.

Next, in this paragraph you can read that when someone is being manipulated they tend to tell the truth. In the process of being manipulated by the police you would tell the truth or cover up for someone else and take the blame for the suspect. At the same time when the innocent person is telling the truth they most likely are going to get nervous and confess about another crime that they caused. When they tell the truth about another crime that they have done, the innocent person will get into trouble.

Finally, in the last paragraph you can learn that if the girls do not get caught or blamed it turns out to be a good thing. Sometimes when the suspect flees the crime scene before the police come, he may have enough time to run away and hide. Most of the time there is not a single bystander that sees you, so that you still have time to hide for nobody to find you. If you are seen by an innocent person you will get caught.

In conclusion, throughout this essay you are able to learn about how the girls accused many people of witchcraft and did not get caught or in trouble. When the girls falsely accused twenty people of witchcraft when the 20 citizens did not do anything wrong and are innocent.

Work Cited

Shmoop Editorial Team. Giles Corey in The Crucible. Shmoop, Shmoop University, 11 Nov. 2008, www.shmoop.com/crucible/giles-corey.html.
Miller, Arthur. The Crucible: A Play in Four Acts. New York: Penguin, 2016. Print.
Lewis, Jone Johnson. Giles Corey - Pressed to Death in the Salem Witch Craze of 1692. ThoughtCo, 25 Mar. 2017, www.thoughtco.com/giles-corey-biography-3530320.
Text, Que. Plagiarism Checker & Citation Assistant. Quetext, 2018, www.quetext.com/.

Did you like this example?

The Truth And Justice By Arthur Miller. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

The Giver Book Setting Analysis

In the dystopian literature novel, The Giver, by Lois Lowry, the main character, Jonas, lives in a society where people have been robbed of all their choices and their emotions. Everyone looks similar and is manipulated to act similarly. Sameness is one of the most valued features of the community. Citizens are released if they violate any expectations of the community based on many rules and regulations. Jonas community is governed by a body of people called Elders. Elders enforce the rules and determine who lives or dies. The setting of the novel creates a depressing mood for the reader as they discover the ways in which Jonas suffers from his heightened feelings and emotions that isolate him from the entire community. As a result, the citizens of the community are significantly affected by certain aspects of setting in the story including a series of laws and beliefs.

One critical aspect of Jonas community is that the citizens cannot obtain books in their dwelling except for the directory, a dictionary, and a book of rules. Jonas first realizes any existence of other books when he arrives for his first day of training in the Recieverr's room. He notices this almost immediately because it appeared to be the most conspicuous difference in comparison to his dwelling. At this point of the story, Jonas is already beginning to discover the secrets of the community that is hidden from the public. The narrator describes Jonas thoughts the moment he is introduced to the Receivers room, The books in his dwelling were the only books Jonas had ever seen. He had never known that other books existed He couldnt imagine what the thousands of pages contained (74). By concealing all other books, knowledge and memories are hidden from everyone else because they are often disturbing, uncomfortable truths that everyone would rather forget. Books allow new ideas which often affect changes. The society in which Jonas lives in is one that strives for sameness in hope of eliminating conflicts. Prohibiting the possession of other books limits their ability to think of new ideas and to be creative. Therefore, the limitation to access books causes a deficiency of love, war, pain, fear, and pleasure which are essential to a meaningful life. The absence of fictional and nonfictional books in their community restrain the citizens from realizing that they live in a world that is far from perfect and should instead, be accessible by any members within the community.

In Jonas community, another aspect of setting that affects the citizens are their practice of Sameness and their goal to completely master it. The community in which Jonas lives in gave up many essentials to life in order to master Sameness. The community began Sameness so that its citizens would be free from pain, safe from all possible harm, have perfect climate control, and an orderly existence to accomplish a perfect community. In reality, Jonas realizes he lives in a place that is the complete opposite of perfect.

When Jonas receives more and more memories of times without Sameness, he gets angry and exclaims, ?If everythingr's the same, then there arent any choices! I want to wake up in the morning and decide things! (97). Jonas is starting to understand that Sameness, which is all he has ever known, is depriving him and everyone else of choices. Consequently, this choice of Sameness from the community limits the citizens ability to acquire personal preferences. He realizes that colors were taken away from the community in an effort to live with Sameness because it represents free choice. Inside the community, many things are regulated to such an extent that one cannot fathom making a choice of their own. Choices can cause pain, but also great happiness. Without it, life is dull, so it should be available to the citizens regardless.

Another significant aspect of the community is that when the citizens reach a certain age, they are required to take pills for stirrings. When a young citizen reaches adolescence, they begin to have stirrings which are dreams that give them sensations of pleasure and other strong emotions that they are not able to comprehend. As soon as they take the pills daily, the strong emotions fade away and they return to their world of no feeling and excitement. Jonas, however, enjoys the stirrings and the strong sensations that come with it. One night he had slept with Gabriel, deep in thought, ?There could be love, Jonas whispered. The next morning, for the first time, Jonas did not take his pill. Something within him, something that had grown there through the memories, told him to throw the pill away (129). The fact that every member in the community that is an adult or an adolescent takes pills to suppress their feelings of sexual attraction or pleasure affects the way they feel towards their peers.

This rule of taking pills eliminates all true emotion because the community views emotion as an enemy. Oner's emotion can compel them to take action and influence the decisions they make about their life. The outcome is that the citizens are unable to know themselves, to be real, and to connect deeply with other people. The Elders believe doing this will control the population and benefit their genetic engineering. This, however, leaves the citizens brainwashed, without the desire for intimacy. Just like in todayr's society, the citizens of Jonas community should be able to control their thoughts and feelings in order to live an enjoyable life worth living.

The important lesson the reader learns through the text is that a truly successful and happy community requires the acceptance of differences. This theme is reflected in the novel because Jonas learns that his community does not embrace individuality and instead only accepts people who simply fit in with the rest of the community. The people of his community are neither satisfied or unsatisfied at their community for it is all they know of and are unable to yearn for a better life due to their lack of knowledge. Jonas grows lonely and feels separated from his friends and family who lack understanding and perception. This lesson is an important truth that has a significant impact on todayr's society. Because of a personr's potential to respect differences, they welcome happiness into their lives and find value in the individuals they meet.

Did you like this example?

The Giver Book Setting Analysis. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

At the Ceremony of Twelve

Jonas is an eleven-year-old that lives in a world without feelings, color, and choice. Citizens can also apply to spouses and children. When their children are grown, family units dissolve and adults live together with Childless Adults until they are too old to function in society. Then they spend their last years being cared for in the House of the Old until they are finally released from society. Jonas lives with his father, mother, and seven-year-old sister. Jonas will soon graduate from being Eleven Soon he will be given his official assignment when he goes to the Ceremony of Twelve. Jonas is different from many people in the community. He has pale eyes, while most people have dark eyes, and he has a unique ability to see beyond. Jonas is the only person in his community who is able to see color.

At the Ceremony of Twelve, Jonas is given the greatly honored assignment of Receiver of Memory. The Receiver is the keeper of the community's collective memory. When the community got rid of color, feeling, and choice, it abandoned the memories of color, emotion, and pain. These memories go to the receiver so the community can avoid making the mistakes of the past. Jonas receives these memories of the past from the current receiver, a wise old man who tells Jonas to call him the Giver. As Jonas receives the memories from the Giver, he realizes how bland and empty his life in the community is.

Jonas's father, a Nurturer of Children, brings home a newborn that isn't growing as fast as he should and isn't sleeping soundly. Jonas helps his family with the new child, Gabriel, by giving him soothing memories to help him sleep. When Jonas finds out that Gabriel is in danger of being released, the Giver reveals to him that release means death. Jonas's anger inspires the Giver to help Jonas create a plan to change the community forever. The Giver tells Jonas about his daughter, the designated receiver before Jonas, and how she asked to be released after the memories had been too much sadness for her. When she died, all the memories she had were released into the community. The Giver and Jonas plan for Jonas to escape the community and to enter Elsewhere. Once he has done that, his larger supply of memories will go into the community and the Giver will help the community to come to terms with the new feelings and thoughts, changing the society forever.

However, Jonas is forced to leave earlier than planned when his father tells him that Gabriel will be released the next day. Desperate to save Gabriel, Jonas steals his father's bicycle and a supply of food and sets off for Elsewhere. Gradually, he enters a landscape full of color, animals, and changing weather, but also hunger, danger, and exhaustion. Avoiding search planes, Jonas and Gabriel travel for a long time until heavy snow makes bike travel impossible. Half-frozen, but comforting Gabriel with memories of sunshine and friendship, Jonas mounts a high hill. Eventually, Jonas has traveled far enough where he has his very own memory. After a sled ride, Jonas hears people singing and thinks there are people waiting for him and Gabriel.

Front Flap:

Jonas is an 11-year-old boy that lives in a community without color, feelings, and pain. However, Jonas isn't like the rest of the people in his community because he has the ability to see color and have feelings. Throughout the story, Jonas is a hardworking and determined character.

Did you like this example?

At the Ceremony of Twelve. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Pain Affects

Pain affects more Americans than diabetes, heart disease and cancer combined according to nih.gov. In the book The Giver, people have never experienced pain. In the community, there is no color, past, or pain. But a boy named Jonas can experience all of those things. The community should have pain, because it helps with growth, confidence, and connections with each people.

People can have growth by learning from the pain. An example is Jonas is riding on his bicycle. Painfully righted himself and the bike, and reassured Gabe (171). This quote shows how Jonas continued in pain, yet he continued to reassure Gabe. Another example, is when Jonas is remembering a time when his friend was disciplined. He couldn't seem to stop, though for each lapse the discipline wand came again, escalating to a series of painful lashes that left marks on Asher's legs (55) This quote tells us that Asher learned from the pain, and grew as a three. From then on, he learned to keep his mouth quiet.

Pain can also help grow a personr's confidence. The book states Something within him, something that had grown there through the memories, told him to throw the pill away. This quote proves that even through all the memories off pain, color, and past. Jonas grew as a person, through all the memories he had received. Another example is when Jonas is thinking how the people would be able to handle all the past. Their attention would turn to the overwhelming task of bearing the memories themselves. This quote shows how much growth Jonas mustve had to endure the memories, compared to others who would be overwhelmed.

Finally, pain can help people connect. In the book Jonas and Gabriel are hiding from the planes, under a bush, waiting anxiously. So always, when he heard the aircraft sound, he reached to Gabriel and transmitted memories of snow, keeping some for himself. Together they became cold; and when the planes were gone, they would shiver, holding each other, until sleep came again. (169.) This quote show how memories can help us connect with other people. Another example that proves my idea, The Giver would help them (161). This quote shows how memories can help people connect and relate to each other.

Did you like this example?

Pain Affects. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Lois Lowry Shows a Supposed

Contents

Functionalism
Conflict Theory
Symbolic Interactionism

The Giver by: Lois Lowry shows a supposed utopian society in the future, where the main character Jonas comes to learn the truth about his society and its inner workings. The Giver is full of different sociological concepts like functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism.

Functionalism

Functionalism can be defined as a society that is made of many different parts; each part has a job or a function that must be accomplished to maintain the stability within the society (Henslin 26). Functionalism is part of the macro-social perspective. The macro-social perspective is when sociologists study society in a larger scale. Functionalism plays a big part in The Giver. The civilization has assignments; which are jobs given to the people living there based on their aptitude and personality. For example, Jonasr's father is given the assignment of a nurturer, where he takes care of newborn children until they are placed with a family. Jonasr's mother works at the department of justice where she acts as somewhat of a judge or disciplinarian on the people in the community. Each person has a job to do in the community whether it is to be a teacher, landscaper, food deliverer, etc.

Within the arrangement of jobs there really is not an opportunity for social inequality. Social inequality is when there is an unfairness in opportunities for members of a society based on their social class or status. Even though there is not social inequality in the community, there is a noticeable stigma for the different social classes. For example, the assignment birthmother is seemed to be looked down upon by Jonasr's family and the rest of the community. When Jonasr's sister Lily says she wants to be a birthmother because she likes the newborn children, her mother chastises her saying there is little honor in that assignment (Lowry 21). If the person does not do their job or is unable to function in society, they will be released from the community. If someone is not doing their assigned job it creates chaos in the community and the leaders, who are called elders, do not like this. That ties directly into functionalism where maintaining the balance or equilibrium is key to a functioning society. Not only do the job assignments relate to functionalism, but also the basis of everything in the daily lives of the people in the community.

All of the people there are on a strict schedule, and there is a strict set of rules that each person must abide to. There is no uniqueness to the people, they are all neatly groomed and wear the same clothes. It is later found out that they do not see color, so there is an aspect of sameness throughout everything. Because of all uniformity of the people in the community there is the situation of conformity. Conformity is when people tend to adjust their behaviors or beliefs to be the same as their peers or other people who are around them. Conformity can be an active choice, where someone deliberately changes their behavior to match someone else, but in The Giver there is no free will in regards to conformity. Even though each person has different personalities and different likes and dislikes, their government makes sure everyone is the same with their set of laws and rules.

The community in The Giver can be likened to a total institution. A total institution is a setting where people are isolated from larger society and are under strict supervision (Henslin 89). Jonasr's community cannot be the only society that exists; they are isolated from anyone else in the world and it seems like the people in the community do not know if there is a world outside theirs. They are under strict supervision from the Elders who have learned all their rules from previous Elders, but their community had to have started at one time because the Giver still has memories of things that have happened in the past. Similar to a degradation ceremony in most total institutions that exist now, all people of the community are stripped of any individuality. They all must wear the same clothes and live extremely similar lives, everything is maintained and controlled. The Giver is an extreme example outlining the possible dystopia that can happen when functionalism is forced upon a community.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory can be defined as when a society, composed of groups, competes for scarce resources. This theory was created by Karl Marx because of the economical inconsistencies between social classes during the Industrial Revolution. Conflict theory is very similar to functionalism in the way that a society is composed of groups, and each group has a purpose. With conflict theory though, there is the struggle of groups with more power withholding things from the other groups. In Karl Marxr's case it was the poverty of the lower-class workers because they were getting abused by their upper-class employers (28 Henslin). In The Giver there is no instance of financial or economic conflict theory; because of the extreme equality that the people in the community have. The real conflict theory is the withholding and elimination of memories. Long before Jonas became the receiver the elders of the community decided that the people of the community would not have the memories of the times before them.

They would not know war, pain, or love. The memories can be considered a scarce resource because other than the Giver and Jonas, no one has them. Wisdom can also be treated as a scarce resource because without memories of past issues, the elders have a hard time making decisions regarding the community without consulting the Giver. Once Jonas realizes the truth about all that the people are missing and how his community is flawed, he desires to make a change. But why cant everyone have the memories? I think it would seem a little easier if the memories were shared. You and I wouldnt have to bear so much by ourselves, if everybody took a part (Lowry 112). After his first painful memory is given to him, he understands that being the holder of all the memories, good and bad, is a burden. Jonas thinks his problems will be solved if the community allows a social change to be adopted. Social change can be defined as when a society changes because of external factors or societal evolution (Lumen Learning).

Having memories would be a deviation in the status quo of the community; breaking away from the normal social institution. Jonas starts executing social change in a small way when he gives Gabriel a memory to soothe him when he is fussing in the middle of the night. Jonas cannot handle all of the immoral things that are happening in his community, and how everyone is desensitized to them because they do not know what they are actually doing. He later on makes the decision to leave the community; if the receiver or the Giver leaves the community the memories that they hold will be given to the community. The Giver has to remain in the community to try to solve the inevitable problems that will come from everyone in the community gaining memories of the past. In the end of the novel it is unclear whether or not when Jonas escaped that his memories were given away.

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism can be defined as when symbols make up a society, and those symbols help people in a society to create meaning, communicate with each other, and help form and evolve views of the world (Henslin 24). In contrast to functionalism, symbolic interactionism can be categorized under the micro-social perspective. A micro-social perspective focuses on more small-scale patterns like social interaction instead of patterns within large groups. Language plays a large role in symbolic interactionism; in The Giver the people are very precise with their language. Very often in todayr's common discussions a certain level of exaggeration is used; it can help convey a message or level of intensity of a situation. In The Giver precision of language is held to a great importance, and to exaggerate would be to lie, which would be greatly looked down upon.

Im starving Immediately he had been taken aside for a brief private lesson in language precision. He was not starving, it was pointed out. He was hungry. No one in the community was starving, had ever been starving would ever be starving. To say ?starving was to speak a lie. An unintentional lie of course. But the reason for precision of language was to ensure that unintentional lies were never uttered (Lowry 70).
The communityr's priority with precision of language shows that their society values politeness and also truthfulness. Extreme preciseness of language removes any sort of genuine emotion that communication can convey. Every night each family has to speak about their feelings that they had during the day. After their feelings are spoken out, they are resolved. While there is something good to be said about resolving and understanding oner's feelings, the way go about it seems to invalidate the personr's feelings. Being truthful and respectful is a rule that their version of the government has enforced on the people.

Going against such rules would be rebellious. Any sort of defiance against the leaders and the rules they created would be oppositional to the community and could be punishable by being released. Whenever a wrongdoing or any sort of indiscretion is done an apology is in order. Apologies are uttered so often that they lose their meaning. The rule of frequent and empty apologies again connects The Giver to the topic of conformity. Another key part of social interactionism is relationships. How people in a society interact with one another is vital to understanding socialization in general. In the present-day world relationships with our family are the first opportunities to develop beliefs. Parents play a key role in developing the concepts and ideas that a person believes. Parents teach their children their version of morals and what is acceptable and what is not. In The Giver everything that parents teach their children align with what the community wants them to believe; it is the same way that the parents were taught by their own parents, so they do not know any other way. The things that a parent passes down to a child can help develop an inner thought process that allows that person to see the world and the people in it a certain way. These things can equate to Cooleyr's theory of the Looking-Glass self.

The Looking-Glass self is how oner's self is developed through how others see us and how they react to us (Henslin 70). In The Giver Jonasr's self starts off aligned within the guidelines of his community. From his early childhood until he becomes a receiver, Jonas is taught by his parents, teachers, and leaders how to act, and how to be a functioning member of their society. His interactions with his parents and peers shape his beliefs, especially how things are operated within his society, he knows no other way then how he has been taught. He is only able to have opinions that ally with the rules and bases of the community and how it is run. When he becomes a receiver and starts receiving memories from the Giver, it changes his inner thoughts and his self.

He is conflicted between what he thought he knew and what he has learned. He begins to question the communityr's version of morality and it changes the way he sees the people and leadership within his community. The aspect of role taking within symbolic interactionism plays a large part in how Jonasr's presence in society. In the world today, children often emulate the behavior of others to help them better develop their self. The only way Jonas would be able to succeed and advance in his life would be to adopt the beliefs and behaviors that the community enforced. By mirroring the actions of his parents and his peers Jonas developed his inner thoughts and being in line with what his society deemed correct.

In conclusion, The Giver is a drastic example of sociological concepts and how when pushed to the extreme rules and regulations can negatively affect a society. The idea of sameness takes away any sort of individuality that people within a society can have. The people in The Giver are ignorant to the things they do not have. Those things are not material possessions but memories that can change the way they make decisions. The leadership takes away any free will with decision making by not allowing memories of the past civilization and society that was before them. Instead they force one person to hold all of the memories and emotions that accompany them. The Giver can be considered a response from Lois Lowry on the possible outcomes of having a perfect society.

Did you like this example?

Lois Lowry Shows A Supposed. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Errors of the Electoral College

Contents

History
The Elector
The Case Against The Electoral College
Conclusion

Supposedly in a democracy everyone's vote should count equipollently, but the method that the U.S. uses to elect its president, the Electoral College, infringed this principle by ascertaining that some people's votes are greaters than others. The Election of these two officers, the president and vice president, is determined by a group of electors. This was established in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The Electoral College represented a compromise among the progenitors of the U.S. about one of the most plaging questions they faced: how to elect the commander in chief . The Constitutional Convention considered more than 15 different including plans for election by Congress or one of its houses, by sundry state officials, by electors, or by direct popular vote. The Electoral College has a rich and complex history, but has time progress on, lots of problems starts to arise because it's an outdated system that was used to accommodate the people 1700s. Now in the twenty first century, it's time for change and to realize the errors the Electoral College.

History

The Electoral College was engendered for two reasons. The first purpose was to engender a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as a component of the structure of the regime that gave extra power to the more minuscule states.The first reason that the progenitors engendered the Electoral College is hard to understand in today culture. The founding fathers were apprehension of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to puissance. Hamilton indicted in the Federalist Papers: It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.

The second reason was for the electoral college to additionally be part of compromises made at the convention to slake the diminutive states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less than 3. According to the History, Art, Archives Of The United States House Of Representatives (H.A.A.U.S.H.R.) The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Conspicuously this engenders an inequitable advantage to voters in the minuscule states whose votes genuinely count more than those people living in medium and astronomically immense states.

The Electoral College was engendered by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise for the presidential election process. At the time, some politicians believed a pristinely popular election was too temerarious and would give an exorbitant amount of voting power to highly populated areas in which people were acclimated with a presidential candidate. Others remonstrated to the possibility of letting Congress select the president, as some suggested.

The Constitution gave each state a number of electors equal to the amalgamated total of its membership in the Senate (two to each state, the senatorial electors) and its delegation in the House of Representatives (currently ranging from one to 52 Members). The electors are culled by the states in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct (U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 1).

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the triumpher takes all the votes in the state. There it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by immensely colossal pluralities and lose others by diminutive number of votes, and thus this is a facile scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This triumpher take all methods utilized in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.

The Elector

The elector plays the most important in the election of the president. The Constitutionr's Article II, Section 1 spells out the rudimental Electoral College rules. A majority of electors is needed to elect a President; members of Congress or people holding a United States office cant be electors; electors cant pick two presidential candidates from their own state, and Congress determines when the electors meet within their states (or in the federal district). The total number of Electoral College members equals the number of people in Congress and three supplemental electors from the District of Columbia.

The list of the electors, or the slate of electors, within a state customarily doesnt appear on the election ballot. States have different rules for when official slates are submitted to election officials. Each political party decides how to submit its slate of electors, at the request of its presidential candidate. The state decides when that slate needs to be submitted.

While they may be well-kenned persons in their states, electors generally receive little apperception as such. In most states, the denominations of individual elector-candidates do not appear anywhere on the ballot; instead only those of the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the parties or other groups that nominated the elector-candidates appear. In some states, the presidential and vice-presidential nominees denominations are preceded on the ballot by the words electors for. The customary anonymity of presidential electors is such that electoral votes are commonly referred to as having been awarded to the winning candidates, as if no human beings were involved in the process.

There is a serious problem, that there is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires Electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their states .Some states, however, require Electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories; Electors bound by state law and those bound by pledges to political parties. Notwithstanding the tradition that electors are bound to vote for the candidates of the party that nominated them, individual electors have sometimes broken their commitment, voting for a different candidate or for candidates other than those to whom they were pledged; they are kenned as faithless or unfaithful electors. This phenomenon, generally referred to as faithless or unfaithful electors, also derives directly from the Constitution, which in the Twelfth Amendment, instructs electors to vote by ballot for President and Vice President. While tradition that electors reflect the popular vote exerts a strong influence, there is no constitutional requirement that they vote for the candidates to whom they are pledged. Although 24 states seek to preclude perfidious electors by a variety of methods, including pledges and the threat of fines or malefactor action, most constitutional philomaths, like Cass Sunstein and Michael McConnell, believe that once electors have been chosen, they remain constitutionally free agents, able to vote for any candidate who meets the requirements for President and Vice President.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be consummately free to act as they optate and consequently, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that s-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be superseded by a supersession elector. According to the National Archives and Record Administration, twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia now have laws that bind electors to the candidate that wins their state. For example, in Utah an elector is considered to have resigned and their vote not recorded if they vote for a candidate not nominated by the same political party of which the elector is a member. Some states merely require electors sign a pledge that they will cast their vote for the candidate that wins their state, but some states go further and impose civil or criminal penalties. In New Mexico, a Faithless Elector is subject to a fourth degree felony charge. But there are also strong arguments that binding electors to vote in a certain way is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has not categorically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No Elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

The Case Against The Electoral College

There is hardly anything in the Constitution harder to explain, or easier to misunderstand, than the Electoral College. The Electoral Colleger's proponents argue that it keeps small states in the conversation and ensures a president has cross-regional support. These are certainly desirable goals, but do they withstand close examination? While there is some merit to the claim that the Electoral College requires presidential candidates to have cross-regional support, the reality is less black and white. Itr's true that under the Electoral College, a presidential candidate cannot win with the support of just the Northeast or the South. But mathematically, neither can they win under a system based solely on the popular vote. Some also argue that the Electoral College allows small states like New Hampshire to gain critical importance in the electoral process, but this ignores the fact that under the current system, the other 12 smallest states are entirely ignored. Some argue that the Electoral College should be dumped as a useless relic of 18th-century white-gentry privilege. A month after the 2016 election, and on the day the members of the Electoral College met to cast their official votes, the New York Times editorial board published a scathing attack of this sort, calling the Electoral College an "antiquated mechanism" that "overwhelming majorities" of Americans would prefer to eliminate in favor of a direct, national popular vote.

The often forgotten territories, Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands, get no votes from the Electoral College. This is because they aren't states and they don't have a special constitutional amendment to recognize them. Which is a bit odd considering they're part of the United States and everyone who lives there as a citizen. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services states: Puerto Rico is also a commonwealth of the United States, meaning the territory has a political union with the United States. Individuals born in Puerto Rico are considered citizens of the United States. The sans would apply to other island expect the American Sonomas. For most practical purpose, they're just like D.C. There are about 4.4 million people who lives in the territories according to the World Population Review. That might not sound like a lot ,but it's more than the populations of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska and Delaware combined. Yet, still no votes from the electoral college. The whole situation with territories is extra strange when you consider the final group of Americans who don't live in the states. Americans who live abroad in a foreign country, can usually send a postal vote to the last state that you reside it in, but if you move within the United States to one of those territories; you lose your right to vote for president as long as you live there.

The Electoral College system is undemocratic in a second respect it weights the votes of some Americans more than those of others. Since each state, regardless of population, has at least three electoral votes (two for its Senate seats and at least one for each representative), the smallest states have a higher ratio for electors to population than do larger states according to the National Archives and Records Administration. As the composition of the electoral college is partially based on state representation in Congress, some maintain it is inconsistent with the one person, one vote principle. The Constitutional Convention agreed on a compromise plan whereby less populous states were assured of a minimum of three electoral votes, based on two Senators and one Representative, regardless of state population. Since electoral college delegations are equal to the combined total of each stater's Senate and House delegation, its composition is arguably weighted in favor of the small, or less populous, states. The two senatorial or at large electors to which each state is entitled are said to confer on them an advantage over more populous states, because voters in the less populous ones cast more electoral votes per voter.

Critics also express concern about the lack of accountability of electors. Most electors are relatively anonymous individuals, not the eminent persons the founders envisioned. Although chosen by state parties to support particular candidates, on occasions they have not done so, thereby creating concern about the irresponsible elector .It might seem counterintuitive that rational voters can create such bad incentives. But consider, as an example, an incumbent who must decide whether to prioritize policy aimed at boosting the economy in the short run, or policy aimed at a long-run problem like global warming. Assume that work on global warming has greater impact on the voters welfare. If the performance of the economy is more informative about the incumbentr's competence or about her ideology, voters will nonetheless respond more to the economy. After all, voters can only affect what happens in the future, so rationality demands that the voter select the best candidate going forward

Conclusion

Throughout modern politics, we have seen presidential candidates fail to grasp the electoral votes, despite having the popular vote. Most recently, we have seen this with Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election cycle against Donald Trump, but as many know, this is not the only time that the most popular candidate did not receive the nomination. The Electoral College is failing us. If you have a voting system that allows losers to win, you shouldn't be surprised when they do. Not once, not twice but four times the most votes from the people actually lost because of the Electoral College. Would you tolerate a sport where by quirk of the rules, there was a 7% chance of the loser winning? Highly unlikely. Given how much more important electing the president of the U.S. is, that is rather a dangerously high percentage of the time to get it wrong.

Did you like this example?

Errors Of The Electoral College. (2019, Jun 10). Retrieved November 7, 2025 , from
https://studydriver.com/2019/06/page/22/

Harriet Tubman: Brave American Abolitionist

Harriet Tubman

Cite this page

My Emotions from Reading the Glass Castle

Cite this page

Poverty and the Glass Castle

Cite this page

The Glass Castle and Literary Theories

Cite this page

Why Franklin Valued Learning

Cite this page

Feminism in their Eyes were Watching God

Cite this page

Mortality in their Eyes were Watching God

Cite this page

Their Eyes were Watching God: Main Characters

Cite this page

Symbols in their Eyes were Watching God

Cite this page

Depiction of Marriage Norms in Doll’s House

Cite this page

Description of Male-Dominant Society

Cite this page

From a Dolls House to Dolls Home

Cite this page

An Idea of Strong Actions of Nora

Cite this page

Significant Role of Characters in Doll’s House

A doll's house

Conclusion

Cite this page

Symbols in Doll’s House Novel

Cite this page

About the Witch Trials in the Crucible

Cite this page

Characters in the Crucible

Williams

John Proctor

Parris

Reverend Hale

Cite this page

Haler’s Statement about Life in the Crucible

Cite this page

John Proctor Struggles against Abigail Williams in the Crucible

Cite this page

Religion and Beliefs in Political System in the Crucible

Cite this page

Criticism the Corrupt Politics by Arthur Miller

Cite this page

The Affect of Power in the Play the Crucible

Cite this page

Discussing the Similarities and Differences from the Crucible Play and Movie

Similarities Between The Crucible Play and Movie

Differences in The Crucible Book and Movie

Cite this page

The Character Abigail in the Play the Crucible

Cite this page

The Truth and Justice by Arthur Miller

Work Cited

Cite this page

The Giver Book Setting Analysis

Cite this page

At the Ceremony of Twelve

Front Flap:

Cite this page

Pain Affects

Cite this page

Lois Lowry Shows a Supposed

Functionalism

Conflict Theory

Symbolic Interactionism

Cite this page

Errors of the Electoral College

History

The Elector

The Case Against The Electoral College

Conclusion

Cite this page