Category: Human Nature

In most cases, it is easy to conform to an idea considered normal by society. Those who contradict these standards are often thought of as brave, but what if this wasn’t the case? If everyone was courageous enough to walk their own path, how different would the world be? Hester Prynne does just this, going against rules her society has put on her, she leads by example and serves as a guide for others to hopefully follow in her footsteps. In Nathanial Hawthrone’s thrilling novel, The Scarlet Letter, Hester Prynne is depicted as that of extremely strong nature; as she is shunned and feared by society, her defiance against puritain ways only grows, illustrating Hawthorne’s argument that puritian society is unfair and harmful.

In the beginning of the book, Hester displays herself with that of a very strong nature, automatically revealing that she is not like the societal norm. Her strength is highlighted as she emerges from jail doors, having served her sentence for being an adulterer, with elegance and a burning confidence about her. She is met with many judgmental faces, all staring her down as she walks out of the doors “With a burning blush, and yet a haughty smile, and a glance that would not be abashed, looked around at her townspeople and neighbors.” (Hawthorne 50).The quote reveals given the amount of public attention she receives, Hester shows obvious signs of embarrassment but nevertheless still stands with a sense of dignity and durability. This delineates her personality as she challenges puritain society and it’s wishes for women to act in a more submissive manner. Hester is a clear indicator of Hawthorne’s wish for change in puritain society as she directly contradicts the standard model of a puritain woman. Additionally, her bouldering strength is shown as the effect of the scarlet letter on her chest is made obvious. Hawthrone states that “It had the effect of a spell, taking her out of the ordinary relations with humanity, and inclosing her in a sphere by herself.” (Hawthorne 51). Because Hester wears her sin on her chest, she is ostracised by society and feared by many. The very lonely life that Hester will call normal for some time also reveals that she will develop a uniqueness and fortitude about her. As her strength smolders, her personality shows just how she objects puritain society, in turn revealing Hawthornes plead for change within it.

Additionally, Hester demonstrates her growing strength as she begins to show the community who she really is, despite being defined by the scarlet letter she wears proudly on her chest. “They said it meant Able, so strong was Hester Prynnee, with a woman’s strength.” (Hawthorne 146).This quote demonstrates how the public begins to think differently about Hester, she is sought out by the public instead of feared and people begin to realize that being like Hester may not be such a bad thing. She proves herself as someone who will not give up easily, given that the people begin to believe the A on her chest stands for “able”. Hawthorne’s betrayal of a woman in puritain society who acts more masculine by their standards reveals his wishes for adjustment in that society. In addition, Hester also exemplifies her strength as “Some attribute had departed from her, the permanence of which had been essential to keep her a woman.” (Hawthorne 148). This quote reveals how Hester begins to change due to the consequence the scarlet letter has. She loses the part of her that keeps her acting like a stereotypical woman, affection and warmth are no longer a factor in her relationships with others. This change depicts her ever growing strength and Hawthornes plea for a change in societal ways.

Lastly, Hester battles her final fight against the rules and regulations of puritain society as she takes off the A marking her chest. With a fierceness about her, she looks straight on and “So speaking, she undid the clasp that fastened the scarlet letter.” (Hawthorne 182). Taking off the scarlet letter was a very impactful act, this shows her complete unwillingness to conform to society as it pressures her to keep the A on. The notion of Hester taking it off challenges everything about puritain society and reveals one of Hester’s strongest moments, dismissing any opinions or rules that force her to keep the A on. Contradictory to this, Hesters bravest move comes when she decides to put the scarlet letter back on, not because of society’s pressure, but because of her own desire. Hester proudly puts the letter back on her chest, “She had returned, therefore, and resumed – of her own free will(…) – resumed the symbol.” (Hawthorne 234). This is one of Hester’s highlights in the book as she does this with her own free will. She did not do this because the puritans told her to, because the rules told her to, but because she feels as though she has a right to wear it and tries to erase the stigma around it. By using Hester’s strength as his model, Hawthorne protests everything about her society.

In conclusion, Nathaniel Hawthorn’s The Scarlet Letter reveals his call for change in puritain society through the use of Hester Prynne, a determined and outspoken woman who disputes the boundaries that society has put on her. Through being the best version of oneself, it is argued that one will lead a happier life. Despite regualtions made by society and fear of judgement we are wired to have, individuality is bound to be an essential part of life.

Work Cited

1. Hawthorne, Nathaniel, 1804-1864. The Scarlet Letter. New York, N.Y., U.S.A. :Signet Classic, 1988.

Many people may say the truth about the same story, and their truths can vary depending on the narrator’s credibility or how much of the truth is being told.. “Everyone holds a piece of the truth.” (Mahatma Gandhi) There are always two sides to a story and a result of that is different truths. Truth is molded by your perception and when you see things differently, that can cause your truth to be altered. The theme, truth, is revealed in “Nothing But the Truth” by Avi and “Tell- Tale Heart” by Edgar Allan Poe even though the texts are structured differently.

In the book “Nothing But the Truth” the idea of truth is expressed when we discover that miscommunication can result in many issues. For instance, “ Mr. Benison: I must have had ten calls last night saying— neighbors, a couple of family people—asking, is it true? I told them look, it wasn’t anything like that. That you didn’t mean it to happen that way./ Miss Narwin: What did you say it meant?/ Mr.Benison: You know, some personal thing, happens all the time…./ Miss Narwin: That’s not what it was! The boy was being rude!/ Mr.Benison: Okay, Peg, I know that, but no one expected, you know, all this…. What people are saying, we’ll never get our budget.” This shows that miscommunication caused many people to assume different things and that not telling the whole truth can lead to a lie. The lie started when one character wasn’t reliable and didn’t tell the whole truth and that caused the truth to adjust. Miss Narwin knows the story but everyone else is assuming what happened. In the text “The Tell- Tale Heart” shows that the truth is based on the character’s perspective and since the narrator of the story wasn’t stable, the reason for why he killed the old man was very unreasonable and contradicts the idea of him not being crazy. According to the narrator, “Was it possible they heard not? Almighty God!– no, no! They heard!– they suspected!– they knew!– they were making a mockery of my horror!… ‘Villains!’ I shrieked, ‘dissemble no more! I admit the deed!– tear up the planks! here here!–It is the beating of his hideous heart!” In other words, the narrator believes that the police can hear the beating heart from the dead old man but he is insane and thinks that the police are mocking him. This shows that this was the narrator’s truth which was his truth only and he believes that happened even though it didn’t.

To conclude, the truth can differ based on how much reliable information you are given. In “Nothing But the Truth” the characters weren’t given enough honest information which caused the true story to be modified. In Poe’s short story, “The Tell- Tale Heart”, it shows that the narrator was unstable and the story he was telling wasn’t all true. The concept of the theme, truth, is a touchy subject. This is because some people think the truth is a fact but it is actually shaped by your perception. Overall, both of these texts show that unreliability is very important because it can change the real story.

The world around us is dark, a dark place, with dark humans and dark lives. Some might say this is a fact, but others say the world is good, a good place, with good humans and good lives. In the stories Lord of the Flies, and “The Most Dangerous Game”, this contrastive opinion is evident. Lord of the Flies is a novel about a group of young, English boys who crash on an abandoned island left to survive. While this may seem like the classic survival story, Golding puts a twist on things when the boys begin turning to savagery. In the short story, “The Most Dangerous Game”, the author also demonstrate savagery when General Zaroff captures Rainsford, and explains that he hunts humans as a game. In both Golding’s 1954 novel, Lord of the Flies, and Connell’s 1924 short story, “The Most Dangerous Game”, the authors use symbolism, themes, and the strong-willed protagonists to explain the savagery that lies within each of us in order to demonstrate their own perspective of human nature.

In the novel, Lord of the Flies, there are many aspects of intensity and survival that contribute to this story; one of them being symbolism. There are many symbols to be found in this book that relates to the theme of the story. When Ralph and Piggy find each other on the island after the plane crash, they stumble upon a conch shell. While this may not seem important readers will soon learn that this conch shell was a symbol of unity and leadership. The two fearful boys blew into the conch to summon anyone else who might’ve been alive on the island. The shell worked and all of the boys were united. They decided when the conch was blown they were to have a meeting, whoever was talking held the conch so no one else would talk, only listen. This is a sign of togetherness in that without the conch it would’ve taken them hours, maybe even days to find each other. Also, this small but powerful shell is a way to establish rules similar to a society. Think about it. If our society didn’t have rules we would turn to savagery, but the conch shell was a way for all of the boys to get what they wanted, well maybe except for Jack. With this in mind, the readers can now conclude that the shell will play an impactful role in the plot. Towards the end of the book Ralph and Piggy go to find Jack and his hunters to demand Piggy gets his specs back. This plan quickly backfires and turns violent when Roger pushes a boulder off the edge above them. The boulder crashes down, hitting Piggy and killing him. Because Piggy was holding the conch, it also shattered demonstrating that their last hope of unity was gone.

Symbolism can also be found in the short story, “The Most Dangerous Game”. A profound symbol in this story is the jungle in which the story takes place. While the conch in Lord of the Flies symbolizes unity and the known, the jungle in his story symbolizes the opposite of this. The jungle can relate to many aspects of this story, the first is the chaos jungles hold. General Zaroff is a strange, psychotic man. The fact that he lives on an abandoned island in the jungle gives us a hit that he is crazy. THe jungle is chaotic, which is a symbol to Zaroff’s mind. Connel writes, “Dense jungle came down to the very edge of the cliffs. What perils that tangle of trees and underbrush might hold for him did not concern Rainsford just then. All he knew was that he was safe from his enemy, the sea, and the utter weariness was on him” (Connel 4). This excerpt not only shows the symbolism of the jungle but also gives foreshadowing of what is to come.

Next, both of these pieces share a persistent protagonist that contributes to the overall theme. Lord of the Flies’ main protagonist, Ralph, is characterized as comforting and brave. We learn early on that Ralph is a natural born leader. I would think of Ralph like a big brother; the littluns are scared and don’t have anyone, but Ralph steps in to make them feel safe. When the boys turn against each other, Ralph doesn’t give in. I think this is an admirable quality in a person. This can show us that humankind is not born evil. Ralph says, “I’m frightened. Of us. I want to go home. Oh God, I want to go home” (Golding ). Ralph shows us how even though he is a strong leader he is still scared. In the short story,“The Most Dangerous Game”, the protagonists Rainsford is characterized as a big-game hunter who is stable-minded, unlike Zaroff. Rainsforded is strong-willed mainly because he doesn’t give up. On the first night of the hunt, Zaroff finds Rainsford easily. Although he was discouraged he was determined to outsmart Zaroff, and make it off Ship Trap Island alive. Connel writes, “Rainsford had fought his way through the bush for two hours. ‘I must keep my nerve. I must keep my nerve,’ he said through tight teeth” (Connell 13).I believe Rainsford said this to show that he was always ready and aware. He would not give up because it mant living or dying. The chance of survival was so important to both Ralph and Rainsford which is what they have in common.

While the symbols and protagonists are important in comparing these stories, the themes of these stories both leave the reader with something taught, or something to debate. There are many themes to be found in Lord of the Flies, but I feel there is one that relates the closest to “The Most Dangerous Game”. The general theme of Lord of the Flies is the question of whether humans are born savage or if that is an impulse and we are born good; or maybe neither, just a blank slate. I think what concludes the readers to this overall theme is that the main characters are just boys, still growing and learning. This leads us to question, because they are younger had the boys never felt savagery in themselves. In“The Most Dangerous Game”, a similar overall theme is present of humankind vs. our savage instinct. One might say Zaroff was born with savage blood, but was he? Or was Zaroff born good, and society in this war driven time had affected him? On the other hand Rainsford will follow his gut, and right away his gut told him Zaroff was crazy. This leads us to question, was Rainsford like this because he was kept in society, and Zaroff wasn’t? As you can see, the themes in the two stories are very similar in that being taken away from society leads both the boys and General Zaroff to savagery.

The authors of both Lord of the Flies, and “The Most Dangerous Game” use symbolism, a strong-willed protagonist, and an overall theme to demonstrate the savagery that lives in all of us to show their view on humankind’s instincts. These two overall themes connect very closely to each other as well as other literary aspects. First, both of the stories share a protagonists who doesn’t give up, which is part of their instinct. Lastly, while it may not seem as obvious at first the themes we can take away from these two stories are evident. We will never know if human nature is good or evil, savage or gentle, cruel or kind. So my question for you is, “Are we good or are we evil?”

Through countless actions man has proven themselves to be the most dangerous and evil species to ever walk on this planet. Man rules the world, dominating millions of living things, they are immoral egotistical animals known as humans. Man has been starting chaos and have brought death to earth since the big bang and later morphed themselves into the society we know of today. Humans will do anything sinister to keep their society and beliefs that they hold so dear. Man took a once peaceful wholesome planet and shape it into a cruel world to fit their evil instinct. The human species evolved from fierce animals, willing to do anything to survive and reproduce, it is a natural instinct to annihilate anything that prevents those actions. These roots embroidered inside of mankind is what encourages 7.5 billion people to revert back to cruel urges and take part in depraved behavior. Man is more inclined to take part in evil behavior due to evidence supported by history, society, and theology.

To specify, even in the early stages of human life, where uninfluenced minds are not yet corrupted with society’s ideas and they’re free to assemble unbiased ideas and thoughts, we are still known to act selfishly. To further explain a new mother learns she is going to have twins; however, in the next time she visits the doctor she’s informed that she will no longer need double of everything For, one of her unborn greedy fetus is hogging up all of the blood flowing to the shared placenta and has used all the nutrients key to the others survival, simply murdering their deprived sibling. The killer noticed the lack of nutrients for both or the abormaily in their twin and reverted back Charles Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” theory to survive. “As is so often the case with fetal loss, genetic abnormalities (such as extra chromosomes) are probably to blame in most cases.” Not only are preborn-babies known for their awful behavior but infants and toddlers are noted to lie for various different reasons. “Children might lie to: cover something up so they don’t get into trouble, to see how you’ll respond when you hear them lie, to make their story more exciting or make themselves sound better, to get attention, even when they know you know the truth get something they want” These small bits of bad behavior lead to the evil acts that humans partake in. Another main factor contributing to the evilness of humans is the fact that parents constantly need to teach their children how to behave. If humans were naturally inclined to take part in good behavior then, even from a young age, there would be no reason to discipline their behavior due to the fact that is would all be affable. However, parents find themselves scolding children for fighting and inflicting pain on others instead of praising them for assisting and caring for others. Due to the fact that their child is not born good but born with the evil instincts of man.

In their life Christians are taught that to achieve of a pure heaven bound soul you must be a “good” person. The Bible confirms that “the lord is good and his love endures forever”, with this being said God is the true definition of good. On the other hand, their definition of evil can be separated into two groups: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evil is made up of purely evil human actions that deal with the intentional suffering of other like murder, genocides, and wars, and more unpreventable things such as incurable diseases, birth defects, and natural disasters. Moral evil is more composed of a disobedience to God, like sins. That is believed to be accompanied by things like vanity, dishonesty, greed, land violence. Christians believe that mankind is evil and, just like Adam and Eve, are more likely to take part in inherently evil behavior. Due to the original sin, where Adam and Eve disobeyed God, it is believed that everyone is born with sin since the defiant couple were the first humans created. Regardless of what anyone has done in their life everyone is brought into the world that has sin in it, they are separated from God until baptized closing the gap and providing salvation. Christians believe everyone should obey to the rule of God to decrease the likelihood that they will be to be linked to evil. In regards to the common concept of heaven it is obvious that Christians believe that humans act more out of self preservation than they do purity since they are all threatened with the eternal hell. If it was truly thought that humans possess a more gospel disposition in life than there would be no need to threaten their sins with hell because simply no sins would be committed.

In the United States there are certain rules that regulate its occupants actions and enforce punishments when broken, laws. Laws are set to maintain a balanced order and understanding of what is morally allowed. Most power consumed countries have laws in order to reduce corrupt actions like murder or violence. If it was believed that humans are more inclined to take part in healthy helpful activities and behavior then there would be no action guidelines that are laws. The same concept may be applied to police officers and governments. It is obvious that people don’t trust one another and predict that other will act cruelly; therefore, we appoint police officers to maintain control and protect us from ourselves and governments to protect us from other nations. This simple conception that no one is in the clear of others ignorant actions, since foreseeing that is impossible, leaves us to assemble groups and organizations to lessen one another’s disastrous conduct. To add to this topic of law and governments, history also supports the evil nature of man. According to statistics, “the United States has been at war 93% of the time since originally founded in 1776 after the colonies won a war to declare freedom.” Man has gone to war multiple times instead of trying their hardest to resolve the conflict without violence. Man jumps to their evil violent instinct of war. The evilness has always stemmed from wanting more, in history most of the time more land or money. No one is ever satisfied with what they have leading them to act brutally just like man has all these years it again comes down to the survival of the fittest.

In short, man is more inclined to engage in evil behavior due to the science of human sociology, Christian theology, laws, and the blood stained history books we add to everyday. Nowadays people would rather sit at home and listen to twisted versions of first world problems on the news instead of making a difference and trying to abolish the real wrongs in the world. The forces of good should respond by bonding together to accomplish a common goal, defeating evil. For ignoring the problem will only aid in its growth. For years, humanity has turned away from the issues of our world but together the forces of good can and will end any traces of evil. All in all, man has been proven time and time again to be full of hatred, however this does not mean that combating good against the corruption, won’t work to destroy it.

Virtue isn’t a feeling. Good men are not always great. Justice does not always seem just. There are various opinions and perspectives on what exactly makes a human ultimately great. Famous philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle have different approaches and views on how to discuss the nature of a human being. Specific qualities and distinctions come about in their famous works on what it exactly means to say a human being is truly great. A fair amount of questioning and reason can be seen from works done by Aristotle and Plato throughout their philosophical writings. Possessing Virtue, happiness, social responsibility, and righteousness define compelling qualities that make a human good or great.

To understand what characteristics and qualities make a human to be truly good, it first must be stated what that actually translates too. Being virtuous and just can often be categorized as being good and great. In Plato’s work, Crito, Socrates has a thorough argument with his dear friend Crito about virtue and acting justly. The main question they discuss through their argument is if it would be just if Socrates escapes the prison he was wrongfully sentenced to and put in. Crito states that Socrates would be aiding the enemy by adhering to the wrongful sentence he was given. He also says that Socrates would be wrongdoing his sons, leaving them abandoned and fatherless. Specifically, Socrates replies with the firm statement of saying, “One should never do harm in return, nor do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you” (Plato, 50). Socrates believes that getting even with someone because they demonstrated unjust actions against you is unjust in itself. Socrates believes that humans have a certain social contract to fulfill. A point he brings up is truth versus public opinion. In his case, his prosecutors were mad at him for preaching his philosophical views in the way he felt was best. They saw it as corruption to the youth and going against what the gods want. Even though Socrates knows that he was not doing anything morally wrong, public opinion of him gets corrupted and changed by the government officials with power. Dying well and just is a more large and noteworthy concern for Socrates.

Plato’s Republic offers a deeper insight relative to what qualities Socrates believed that a good and just human should possess and demonstrate. Socrates is asking around to people such as Glaucon, Cephalus, and Thrasymachus, to try and find the best definition of justice. This dialogue tells us a lot about the ideas of human nature. In Book 2 of Plato’s Republic, Glaucon is challenging Socrates to prove that justice is desired for its own sake and consequences. Glaucon believes humans only strive to be just and good because of the negative consequences that will come from leading an unjust life. Often times people do the right thing just because they would suffer worse from doing the wrong thing, therefore they desire justice only for its end rewards not for its actual representation. Glaucon then brings a very valuable story that demonstrates an argumentative lesson for Socrates to interpret. The legend of The Ring of Gyges demonstrates Glaucon’s definition of justice by saying it is, “ In between the best and the worst. The best is to do injustice without paying the penalty; the worst is to suffer it without being able to take revenge. Justice is in the middle between these two extremes. People love it, not because it is a good thing, but because they are too weak to do injustice with impunity”. The story tells about a shepherd in Lydia. During a huge thunderstorm, there was an earthquake so powerful that it broke open the ground and created a chasm. This shepherd decided to go down in the Earth. He finds a corpse with a gold ring on it, so he takes the ring and wears it around. One day, he shifts the ring the opposite way on his finger and suddenly becomes invisible to everyone that is around him. Once he found out this phenomenon was actually real, he arranged to be a messenger that was sent to the king. When he got there, he used the power of his ring to seduce the king’s wife, kill the king with her help, and then took over his kingdom. Glaucon goes on to say that this story is, “strong evidence that no one is just willingly, but only when compelled. No one believes justice to be a good thing when it is kept private, since whenever either person thinks he can do injustice with impunity, he does it. Indeed, all men believe that injustice is far more profitable to themselves than is justice.” (Plato, 39). This point is significant in the fact that it demonstrates a certain instance where a man is doing unjust things based upon reasoning that he will not be reprimanded for his actions. Would every man do injustice if he or she could get away from any punishments?

To understand the nature of a good life for human beings and the different qualities they might possess, Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics discusses just that. All humans strive for a universal ultimate good. How do they achieve that? Aristotle’s believes that each person’s path to a good life varies by what they do daily. He gives the example that the main end goal for military is victory. The same logic can be applied to a common man, stating that the end goal for his life is happiness. In Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle’s states that the highest human good is happiness. Happiness is a quality that makes a human great, as well as enhances their life in countless ways. In book one chapter seven, Aristotle describes the highest human good by saying, “Happiness above all seems to be of this character, for we always choose it on account of itself and never on account of something else. Yet honor, pleasure, intellect, and every virtue we choose on their own account- for even if nothing resulted from them, we would choose each of them- but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, because we suppose that through them, we will be happy.” (Aristotle, 11). As opposed to doing something to be happy, striving for happiness itself is a quality that makes a human great.

Being a great human being is not an easy task to meet. With fighting temptations to do the wrong things, often brings up many hard choices and decisions is each one’s daily life. Defining qualities that can be instilled into humans from a young age are what make them truly great. Happiness drives a human to be great and can magnify their life to be the best it can. It is said that happiness is the greatest good a human can obtain. Leading a virtuous life can also make a human great. Showing that you are just and compliant to your nation is a quality that most good humans possess. Righteousness is a quality that also can be used to describe the truly great man. To be righteous is to be just and morally right which a perfect defining quality of what it means for a human to be great.

Atheists typically propose a few possibilities: evolution, reason, conscience, and human nature. None of these can be the ultimate source of morality. Let’s start with evolution. It cannot be evolution because any supposed morality that is evolving can change. If it can change for the good or bad, there must be a standard above these changes to judge them as good or bad. For most of human history, powerful societies enslaved weaker societies and prospered. That’s just the way it was, and no one questioned it. Now we condemn slavery. But based on a merely evolutionary model, that is an ever-changing view of morality, who is to say that it won’t be acceptable again one day? Slavery was once accepted, but it was not therefore acceptable. What about reasoning? While reasoning is a powerful tool to help us discover and understand morality, it cannot be the source of morality. Was it reasoning, or something higher than reasoning, that led those gentiles who risked their lives to save Jews during the Holocauset? The answer is obvious: it was something higher than reasoning, because risking one’s life to save a stranger is a very unreasonable thing to do. Conscience can’t be the source of morality. How is your conscience right but Hitler’s is wrong if conscience alone is the source of morality? The answer is you can’t. Some people say that human nature is the ultimate source of morality. But human nature can lead us to do all sorts of deplorable things. In fact, human nature is the reason we need morality.

Human behavior determines why certain things are “good” or “bad”. Human behavior is affected by both genetic inheritance and by experience. The ways in which people develop are shaped by social experience and circumstances that we have been through. Each person is born into a social and cultural setting, whether it be family, community, social class, or religion. The characteristics of a person’s social setting also affects how that person learns to think and behave, thus deciding what is good and bad. When we decide what is good and what is bad, we also base things off of not only our emotions, but the facts. Here’s an example: smoking is bad. An emotional reason it maybe bad is because a close family member has died because of smoking. A fact of why it is bad is because the nicotine is damaging to your body

Every culture includes a somewhat different web of patterns and meanings. This includes: ways of living, systems of trade and government, social roles, religions, expectations for behavior, and beliefs and values. Fair or unfair, desirable or undesirable, opinions are a salient part of every culture. That’s why there’s many people who take pride in their culture and where they come from; other people can’t relate to them and it’s something special that only the people within that certain way of life will understand. If we look into religion, someone who follows Islam prays 5 times a day and has to go to the mosque on Fridays, while someone who follows Christianity pray’s once a day and goes to church on Suday. This becomes another factor in which how religious someone is and how much they care about their religion. Some may say not praying everyday is bad or some may say “it’s fine” or “it’s okay”. In Islam it is forbidden to eat pork, but why is it known as bad? Religion wise, it is “bad” because it goes against the will of Allah (God). There is also science proving it is harmful to eat pork. It increases your chances of developing deadly diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s, asthma, and impotence. In religion people think its always bad to go against the will of God because God wants all good. That’s why muslims follow what the Quran says and Christians follow what the Bible says and they all try to be what is known as “good” or holy.

People think if someone comes from a lower social class or a shady neighborhood, they’ll turn out to be “bad” but that’s not true. People are shaped by their surroundings yes but mostly by other people who are around them. There’s a saying “you are who you go out with” and that’s true, if you look at someone who hangs with people who do things that are considered bad then they’re more likely to do those “bad” activities when they’re with these certain people in their lives. When someone hangs out with people who are doing things considered good, then for those same reasons, this person is more likely to do these “good” activities. You also have to bring the parents into this part because parents are also involved in the factor of shaping the minds of their children. Parents teach their children about the world around them so they can get a basic understanding of it. For instance, if a child grows up in a household with parents who are conservatives, then they’re most likely to follow the same path of being conservative, and if they’re raised in a house where the parents are liberals then the child will most likely be a liberal and so on. This will become the child’s belief of politics and they will end up choosing sides on a political topics. Take abortion as an example, them being raised in a household with a certain belief will shape their opinion on this topic. Then there’s other social problems such as racism: racism is taught to people because no one is born hating another person for any reason. If a child is raised in an environment where there are racists, then they’ll obviously be on the side of thinking that certain people are worthless because of the color of their skin and they’ll think that people of lighter color are good.

When a waiter in a diner asks you if you would like dessert after a meal, the answer is easy. Your belly isn’t full and you love sweets, so yes! In other words, you make your own decisions. What if there were four other people sitting at the table with you and each of them had already said, “no thank you” when asked if they would like dessert? Do you change your answer? What is demonstrated her is explained by Jonah Berger, Stanford phD and professor of Marketing in his new book, “Invisible Influence; The Hidden Forces That Shape Behavior”. Jonah Berger shows that these influences are often so strongly embedded in our nature, they’re practically impossible to resist. In fact, it is not just humans. Many animals are affected by influence, even cockroaches. In 1969, Robert Zajonc studied the effects of a crowdon racing cockroaches. What’s the result? Cockroaches ran faster when being watched. That’s not all: the same audience made them run slower when Robert made the race more difficult. Later studies show the same thing happens to humans.

The idea of a soul mate has existed for thousands of years. In The Symposium, Plato wrote that humans originally had four legs, four arms, and a head made of two faces. They could walk equally well backward and forward, and so terrible was their might and strength that they threatened the very gods who were supposed to be ruling over them. Something had to be done. The gods discussed various solutions. Some wanted to annihilate the human race—wipe them out forever. But one of the gods, Zeus, had a more creative idea. Humans provided gods with various tributes and offerings, so why kill them off entirely? Instead, each human would be split in half. This would teach them a lesson. It would diminish humanity’s strength and punish humans for their pride. And so it went. Each human was divided down the middle. Like a tree trunk cut in two. Not surprisingly, these split humans were miserable. Even when their wounds healed, they cast about, longing for their other half. Forever searching for the piece that would make them whole. A lot has changed since Plato’s time, but the notion of a one, true love for each of us has remained.

“Metamorphosis” is one of the most representative short stories written by Franz Kafka. The contradiction of character and the complexity of his personality that build the story. The plot of the novel is not a fairy tale, the beasts in the fairy tale eventually regain their human form. No one cared what happened to other. No longer bring any financial benefits effect his family abandoned him. The fairy tale disappeared completely, and the ugly face of reality was everywhere. Once human suddenly became a beetle and lost his job, gradually the attitude of the family has changed from dependent, usefulness to aversion which contrast due to the family economics. The traditional patriarchal clan law which maintains the warmth between people has been alienated in modern society to rely mainly on economic ties. In a bourgeois family, once an adult member of the family loses the ability to work and thus breaks off economic relation with the family, that becomes a burden and a redundant member. Finances was the “rope” that held the family together, when the rope was broken, the relationship between family broke down. Metamorphosis have a very effective reflection of the capitalist society.

Finances condition have significant impact on Samsa family’s dynamics. In the absence of an economy, the family is very depressed and their attitude towards Gregor have huge changes. The attitude of the family depends on whether the other can providing them financial benefits. According to the book “The Metamorphosis” It shows that “Inexorably Gregor’s father drove him backward, uttering hissing sounds like a wild man.” (16) This demonstrate that his father has huge reaction after Gregor becomes a beetle. Not only was feels disgusting that his son become a bug, but it was because a beetle couldn’t continue to contribute to whole family and help them for the income. Such a person is just an encumbrance. Things would be different without Gregor’s metamorphosis. In page 9 when his father doesn’t know the truth ““He isn’t well,” Gregor’s mother said to the general manager while his father was still having his say beside the door, “not well at all, take my word for it, sir. Why else would Gregor miss his train! The office is the only thing that boy ever think of. It really bothers me that he never goes out in the evening; he’s been back in the city an entire week now, but he’s spent every last evening at home.” it gives an account of the attitude of the family towards Gregor changed as Gregor’s role in the family changed. When Gregor was the breadwinner and as the only source of income, the family was very concerned about his abnormal behavior. Although father adopting a tougher tone, but still tried to explain for his son. Therefore, when a person goes from the pillar of support to a terminal illness, his family will be very concerned and sympathetic. But after the patient lose all the abilities and the family financial burden becomes heavier, the naturally and complaint will naturally occur. “It has to,” Gregor’s sister cried out, “that’s the only way, Father. You just have to try to let go of the notion that this thing is Gregor. The real disaster is that we believed this for so long. But how could it be Gregor?” (42) this indicate that when a patient becomes the biggest obstacle for a family to start a new life, they may even rejoice in his disappearance. Family could not stand the test and their humanity gradually shrank by all the thing happened.

We can clearly see that even of the closest family member treat the Gregor with selfishness, indifferent, and cruelty. Metamorphosis shows the relationship between people and the relation of pure interest is too pessimistic and negative for some people. However, it reveals the essence of human being and their living conditions in modern society. Metamorphosis is resistance, in order to escape the alienation (family, company, economic) of society form him. According to “The Metamorphosis” it shows that “As soon as I’ve saved up enough money to pay back what my parent owes him —- another five or six years ought to be enough— I’ll most definitely do just that.” (4) this signify passage of Gregor needs to help his family pay back the debt, and he was the “money machine” of the family and the company. No one care about him personally, and he longed to escape from a heavy, oppressive life. We can understand metamorphosis as a man doesn’t accepting such a repressive life, too much depression, sadness, and pressure in life brings metamorphosis. Another example was “For the time being, though, I’ve got to get up, my train leaves at five.” (4) It can be seen that Gregor’s first reaction when he becomes a battle is to worry that he won’t be able to catch the train, he is anxiety buried the fact that he had become a bug. And not even feel bitter for inflicted misfortune, it’s that anxiety turning into worms doesn’t given financially benefit to the family.

Family’s finance change over the course of the story and the structure had change in consequence. The lack of economic value leads to isolation and instant destruction of relationships with family. According to the book “Gregor’s father fetched breakfast for the petty employees at the bank, his mother sacrificed herself for the underclothes of strangers, his ran back and forth behind the shop counter at her customer’ behest, but this was all the strength they had.” “Gregor’s mother, gesturing toward his room, would say: “shut the door now, Grete”; and when Gregor was left in the dark.” (34) It reveals that when the family is in financial trouble, they must band together for survive. Those who loses the ability to work will simply be abandoned and thus breaks off economic relation with family. Another example shows that “Without bothering to consider how she might give Gregor particular pleasure, his sister would quickly thrust some randomly chosen foodstuff into his room with her foot on her way to work in the morning or at midday, only to sweep it out again at night with a quick swipe of the broom, paying no heed if the food had been only barely nibbled at or—as was most often the case now—not touched at all.”(34-35) this demonstrate that can no longer maintain the kind of economic contact with the family then the love will no longer exists, the family affection shows the falsity. The rope that held Gregor and his family together was broken, the relationship between family member is also split, even the sister became indifferent. Furthermore, in shows “She had recently blossomed into a beautiful, voluptuous girl. Growing quieter now and communicating with one another almost unconsciously by an exchange of glances, they thought about how it would soon be time to find her a good husband. And when they arrived at their destination, it seemed to them almost a confirmation of their new dreams.” (47) It reveals that Samsa family saw financial value in Grete again. It’s ironic that their children are only useful to them, they can give an economic benefit for them— “Person” as “objects”. We are likely an object, not human being.

In conclusion, in Kafka work “The Metamorphosis” have well reflects the relationship between people. His most prominent artistic feature shows overall absurdity but shows a lot of things in trues. The relationship between people is indifference, egoism and pure interest. Once a person cannot bring benefit to other and cannot even earn one’s own living, then people will be avoided by it. Even the closest family member. People’s relationship has changed in the face of money, human nature is selfish, they will only care about their interest. Regardless of how much that person has paid, as long there is no more value in the future, they will abandon his, as he is a burden. All the evidence shows finances was the “rope” that held the family together, when the rope was broken, the relationship between family broke down. No economic value can very simple lead to the original happiness family to destroyed.

Throughout Berger’s documentary, Ways of Seeing, Berger discusses how the female body is perceived by a male eye, and how women are automatically objectified and dehumanised in a way that makes them appear simply as an inanimate object for men to admire for their own benefit and lust. The way a photograph is lit, how the photo is taken and the angles the image has been captured at, as well as the way women are positioned, made up and dressed, are all factors that influence the male gaze over women (Ways of Seeing, 1972).

Photos and paintings like this painting of Susanna and the Elders, emphasise and show that these were created simply for men to view for pleasure. However, from a woman’s perspective, Berger strongly believes that women are constantly thinking about the way they look and feel within themselves, as well as to others, particularly by men. Women constantly feel the need to look respectable in order to feel loved or have self-worth and value (See Fig.1).

“A woman must continually watch herself. She is almost continually accompanied by her own image of herself. From earliest childhood she has been taught and persuaded to survey herself continually” (Berger, 1972).

Subconsciously, women are naturally trying to impress people, especially men, whereby they constantly feel the need to look in mirrors and see their reflection to check how they appear to others, whereby they want to gain approval from men. Berger states that he strongly feels that this ideology is not vanity, but women have been taught from a young age to always look representable and respectable (Ways of Seeing, 1972).

My image on the right of the model is posing in a formal way, whereby her shoulders are back, she is sitting up straight, her arms are placed elegantly and her head is slightly tilted to face the front. Her eyes are also directly looking into the camera or viewer. This eye contact and her sensual facial expression conveys a serious yet sultry look, with the handheld mirror in her hand emphasising this vanity yet lust and importance to impress the Male voyeur. This photo is in relation to the context around Robusti’s painting and Berger’s theory revolving around the idea of a female’s nature is to subconsciously please the male (Berger, 1972).

For these photographs, I wanted to portray a ‘Hollywood Glamour’ feel, whereby the female model is seen as sophisticated, wealthy, beautiful and glamorous. The poses she is in are quite sensual, with her facial expression is lustful and serious. These types of imagery were what made up fashion photography in the 1950s.

Friedan discusses how women are perceived by heterosexual men and how fashion photography was simply created for the opposite gender to lust over, whilst women saw these photos advertised as how they were expected to dress and look like in order to be happy and successful in life. Women’s dreams, goals and ambitions in life were to simply please a man to secure a husband and to provide meals and look after the house and children. This was supposedly known as “true feminine fulfillment” (Friedan, 1963:18).

Voyeurism is a word that represents the ‘male gaze’. The term ‘male gaze’ is used to describe the way in which heterosexual men admire these glamorous women, either from men’s magazines or their own wife, in order to gain pleasure or lust over them. This is emphasised by Mulvey’s theory that women are seen as less important and more inferior than man, as they are just seen as a sexual symbol with no personality (Mulvey, 1975).

There are several different aspects that form the ‘gaze’, such as how women see themselves, how men see women and how women see other women, by which it is in their human nature to compare themselves against other women (Mulvey, 1975).

The model is seen wearing what can be identified as luxurious and expensive items, such as diamanté earrings and necklace, with a fur shrug and long wavy hair. All these are characteristics that attract the male voyeur to the image which then makes the woman in the photo seen as an object and a symbol for sexual pleasure. Her sultry and lustful facial expression also adds to the attraction of the male eye (Mulvey, 1975).

For these set of photographs, I wanted to create sensual, sophisticated feel with elegance, glamour yet a voyeuristic feel, whereby the model still looks glamorous even in a bathrobe and shower cap. These images would be of particular interest to the male voyeur, which is what fashion photography in the 50s was created to attract and appeal to (Mulvey, 1975).

“Traditionally media representations of women were repudiated for featuring women in narrow, stereotypical ways as passive and as sexual objects, emphasising their domestic roles” (Lazar, 2009).

Women were automatically dehumanised and seen as an object for men to simply view and gain pleasure from, as well as also being seen as inferior to men in terms of what women were capable of doing, such as men would be the ones who went to work to earn the money whilst the women would have to stay at home to look after the house and children (Lazar, 2009).

There were lots of magazines in the 50s, aimed toward women, which taught them the ideologies of a stay at home figure and what was expected of a domestic housewife, as well as keeping up a high beauty regime in order to please their husbands or attract the opposite sex. Women were taught from a young age how to dress, behave and express themselves (Pilcher, 1999).

There were also magazines especially curated for men, which featured pages of beautiful women and pin-up posters, like my photograph on the left, for men to admire (Pilcher, 1999).

On the contrary, “The contemporary media represent women as assertive, in control and autonomous, having a strong public presence, while confidently embracing feminine practices.” (Lazar, 2009).

In today’s society, the practice of feminism has enabled women to gain independence and have equal rights to men. Fashion photography has also been revolutionised so that women can be seen as a role model, a unique individual and is another way to express themselves freely (Lazar, 2009).

For this photograph, the concept behind the composition was to create and design a visual series that represented a new idea for hair, such as using hair for different ways of styling for clothing, accessories and footwear. I used hair as a tool that is used to express oneself and a way of giving a visual identity.

Hielscher states, “Hairstyles have been ‘assigned a visually communicated identity’, just like fashion and dress that play a central part in any culture in relation to class, race, sexuality and gender.” (Hielscher, 2013:257).

This emphasises how society puts this pressure on the importance of looking glamorous or pretty and how one represents themselves, particularly women, through makeup, clothing and accessories, in order to either feel confident in oneself, accepted in society and impress the male eye. The way a woman’s hair is styled is made to feel just as important as how they dress and compose themselves.

The way a woman’s hair is styled can also represent her social class, sexuality and race too.

“Women were meant to be submissive and gentle, which was embodied in the way that they controlled their hair.” (Hielscher, 2013:257).

This statement conveys that by recognising a woman with her hair in a certain way, such as neatly tied back in a bouffant style in the 50s, this was seen as a woman of class, elegance and sophistication and a “representation of the traditional status and conventionality of women” (Hielscher, 2013:257).

The way a woman’s hair has been styled and treated is a symbol for her wealth. Women who were seen with well groomed, shiny hair, were more likely to be of higher class and status than women who did not look after their hair with lavish products such as shampoos, conditioners, serums and treatments for shinier, thicker and softer hair (Hielscher, 2013).

For my series of photographs on the way hair can be used as a material for different functions as well as how hair can be experimented with, I wanted to show how versatile and experimental hair could be, by manipulating it in numerous ways to create something unusual and striking. Whether that be the way the hair was styled on her head, or using hair for completely different means, such as for shoes, bags and clothing. I also wanted to produce images that were fun, playful and exciting, to portray a relaxed yet stylish feel to the photos, which is the opposite effect of how hair used to be seen as a way of knowing who was of a higher social status and wealth than others (Hielscher, 2013).

Dance had a stereotype surrounding it, whereby it was seen as a very dominated female heavy sport, especially ballet, modern and jazz dancing. If males were to participate in such a sport, they were deemed as ‘feminine’, ‘queer’ or gay’ (Polasek and Roper, 2011).

However in today’s current society, male dancers have seen a huge increase in numbers, potentially due to people being more accepted in society, more coverage and advertisement of the sport with female and male participants, through social media, as well as the increase of television programmes that are based around dance competitions. Although dance is still mainly associated with females, men are just as important when it comes to performing a routine together, however, female dancers still seem to be in the spotlight more, due to dance originally being recognised as a female sport. Male dancers have challenged gender ideologies within dance, which has led to the equality and acceptance of males expressing themselves through dance and gymnastics (Polasek and Roper, 2011).

My photos of the male model demonstrating dance and acrobatic movements, represents a masculine figure and hegemonic masculinity. His physicality looks muscly and his body language expresses confidence, strength, flexibility and pride. By looking at such photos, one cannot identify whether the model is heterosexual or gay, even though dance is predominantly associated with women with the stereotype that men who dance are branded ‘feminine’ (Polasek and Roper, 2011).

The expected beauty ideal of ‘feminine beauty’ translates across into children’s fairy tales, whereby tales with themes of beauty and femininity, such as Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella have majorly impacted young girls growing up (Baker-Sperry and Grauerholz, 2003).

“Children’s fairy tales, which emphasise such things as women’s passivity and beauty, are indeed gendered scripts and serve to legitimatise and support the dominant gender system” (Baker-Sperry and Grauerholz, 2003:711).

This is reinforced by Berger’s theory that females are subconsciously taught the beauty standards and expectations they need to maintain throughout their lives to be accepted in society, to be of some importance and to have a form of social status, as well as appeal to the male gender (Berger, 1975).

These photographs were taken to represent my version of the fairy tale, ‘Alice in Wonderland’, whereby Alice is seen as this beautiful, smart character having a tea party with a rabbit in the woods. By looking at this image, you can tell that Alice is being portrayed as a glamorous and elegant woman, who fulfills these feminine beauty standards that young girls look up to and aspire to be like.

“The feminine beauty ideal – the socially constructed notion that physical attractiveness is one of women’s most important assets, and something all women should strive to achieve and maintain” (Baker-Sperry and Grauerholz, 2003:711).

Women are objectified by men, as icons for them to admire their beauty and form. Young girls are quick to learn that one of the most important aspects of being a woman, is how they represent themselves to society, especially men, and that they must maintain an extremely high standard of self-care and beauty regimes so that they impress and appeal to the opposite sex, in order for them to find a husband and have a family. The beauty ideals within fairy tales like ‘Alice in Wonderland’, set high standards for young girls to admire (Baker-Sperry and Grauerholz, 2003).

Freedman states that “women are aware that beauty counts heavily with men and they therefore work hard to achieve it.” (Freedman, 1986, 11). This reinforces the idea that this is what both women and society expect every young girl’s dream and accomplishment in life is to be like.

As a conclusion, with the help of female magazines, fairy tales and fashion photography in the 50s, these factors set a social standard for women and young girls to admire and learn from, teaching them how they were expected to dress, behave and compose themselves in their day to day lives. They had to look their very best at all times, by looking glamorous, fashionable, sophisticated, elegant and beautiful in order to keep either their husbands happy, to find a man or to be able to simply be successful and content in life. This was every young girl’s dream and admiration.

Fairy tales, magazines and fashion photography helped to frame these social standards for women. The sole purpose of their lives was to please others, especially men. If women had other intentions for their lives such as to be independent, find a job and have an ambition other than looking after their family, they were judged, laughed at, made to feel stupid and worthless.

Males who dance were also questioned as to whether they were viewed as masculine and strong. There was a stereotype surrounding dance that it was only deemed socially acceptable for women to dance, and if you were male, you were seen as ‘queer’ and ‘feminine’. Although today men are equally as accepted within the dance community, without the stereotype attached.

1. Baker-Sperry, Lori and Grauerholz, Liz (2003) The Pervasiveness and persistence of the feminine beauty ideal in children’s fairy tales. Sage Publications Inc. [online]. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3594706?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
2. Berger, John. (1975) Ways of Seeing. Available at: https://youtu.be/0pDE4VX_9Kk
3. Freedman, Rita. (1986) Beauty Bound,
4. Friedan, Betty. (1963) The Feminine Mystique. Toronto: George J.McLeod Limited. [online]. Available at: http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/ows/seminars/tcentury/FeminineMystique.pdf
5. Hielscher, Sabine. (2013)
6. Lazar, Michelle M. (2009) Entitled to Consume: Postfeminist Femininity and a culture of post-critique (2009:371-400).
7. Mulvey, Laura. (1975) Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Available at: http://www.composingdigitalmedia.org/f15_mca/mca_reads/mulvey.pdf
8. Pilcher, Jane. (1999) Women in Contemporary Britain: An Introduction. London: Routledge. [online] Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jqyGAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
9. Polasek, Katherine M. and Roper, Emily A. (2011) Negotiating the gay male stereotype in ballet and modern dance. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14647893.2011.603047?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Introduction

The tragedy of Othello, written by William Shakespeare, … (link to question). In doing so, Shakespeare is able to decipher Othello’s inability from appearance vs reality as his hamartia allows Iago to deceive him and lets emotion overcome reason. It also highlights Othello’s struggle with the human condition, and his fatal flaw conveys his struggle to control his jealousy.

Human Nature

Shakespeare explores the nature of humanity through the characterisation of Othello, and his many flaws. Othello’s hamartia arises from the magnified sense of insecurity, hubris and misplaced trust brought about directly by Iago’s diabolic intellect and a growing sense of uncertainty. It is these uncontrollable emotional factors that assist in his collapse from respected general to deluded murder. The interactions between the protagonists of the play as well as strong characterisation allows for the emergence of one of Othello’s fatal flaws, misplaced trust. The machiavellian characterisation of Iago perpetuates the tragedy of the play by provoking the harmatia within Othello, “he kneels” this is symbolic of his downfall stage direction. This shows him succumbing to jealousy as his hamartia is being generated.

Iago’s ability to take advantage of people’s flaws and situations when they arise also allows him to manipulate Othello’s, “free and open nature” through the “pouring pestilence into the ear of the moor”. Consequently through this metaphor it shows us how easily corruptible humanity is. The constant declarations of Iago that he “hates the moor” are juxtaposed with the repeated description of an “honest Iago” in order to build up empathy for Othello and reveal his fragile human nature. Therefore the interaction between … (link to question) as human motivations are exposed.

Jealousy

In Othello, Shakespeare proves that jealousy is inherently unreasonable, as it is founded on the psychological issues of a jealous person, not on the behaviour of the one who prompts the jealous feelings. It is Othello’s public insecurity that makes him jealous of Cassio and allows him to believe that Cassio has slept with Desdemona. Also, it is Iago’s jealousy of Othello that drives him to destroy both Othello and Desdemona.

Iago describes jealousy “it’s the green-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on”, the metaphor surrounding the specific quality of the “green-eyed monster” alludes to the idea that jealousy is an irrational emotion which causes psychological destruction. Allusions to chaos act as a form of foreshadowing of Othello’s intensifying jealousy that heighten the suspense and signal Desdemona’s ultimate demise, “I do love thee, and when I love thee not, chaos is come again.”, chaos in this instance personifies the irrational nature of jealousy.

Othello’s jealousy is further intensified by his status as an outsider in Venetian society, Iago fuels this irrational jealousy by deepening the differences between Othello and Cassio. “Cassio is a proper man”, Iago implies that Othello is not, constantly using epithets to describe him “old black ram”, thus causing further insecurities and leads to the fracturing of Othello’s psyche.

Appearance vs Reality

Shakespeare uses the medium of drama to highlight the recurring theme that one should not always trust what they see. The audience and the players both grapple with distinguishing appearance and reality. This is best seen through the actions of Iago who is driven by his jealousy to achieve his evil motives. Shakespeare display’s Iago’s manipulative ways to the audience through dramatic irony whereby the audience can see his reality, however, the characters cannot. This is clearly seen through the constant portrayal of Iago as “A man he is of honesty and trust” which indeed strongly contradicts his true nature through dramatic irony.

Shakespeare’s idea of appearance vs reality is further intensified by Iago’s dialogue, “I am not what I am”, as Iago is essentially foreshadowing who he truly is, he is basically telling the audience that he is not what he appears to be and in this case he appears to be loyal to Othello however he plans to sabotage Othello. “Oh, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial.” The bestial imagery implies that Cassio reputations act as appearance, Cassio is actually a violent man but keeps up appearances and so usually never drinks.

During the play, dramatic irony allows us to realise that Othello has labelled Iago, whom we know to be “janus-faced” and deceptive, “I am not what I am”, as “a man of exceeding honesty.”

The central message which this theme implies is that it is a human trait which is found within all contexts and hence in becomes universally significant. Shakespeare aims to highlight humanity’s inability to judge true from false as well as to highlight humanities deceptive nature and potentially warn humanity of deceptive individuals.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Shakespeare’s play “Othello” has a (refer to question) as it explores the many pertinent universal ideas within society. Shakespeare sends warnings to his audience and the society, to avoid (link to themes), as such social issues will lead to tragedy as they provoke flaws that lie under the surface of every human being.

Sociologists, Anthropologists, and Psychologists have all attempted to answer the big question, “What does it mean to be human?”. This essay will be referring to the contributions of Psychology, Sociology, and Anthropology and how they helped determine what it means to be human. The Sociology concept of Structural functionalism focuses on how humans are the only known species to have social institutions and classes such as the rich and the poor. The Anthropology concept of primatology and special human characteristics focuses on what makes us so unique from other species and why it makes us human. The Psychology concept of the isolated child, Genie, shows how important it is for human children to socialize and how it can affect them physically and mentally. The concepts, Structural Functionalism, Primatology Special human characteristics, and Isolated child helped determine what it means to be human.

Firstly, the sociology concept of structural functionalism helped determine what it means to be human because it talks about how society is stable when social institutions(e.g, religions, schools, etc.) meet the needs of its citizens. Human beings are the only species known to have social institutions like schools, mosques, churches, etc. Without social institutions, our whole society would collapse. One of the reasons why Structural Functionalism plays a huge role in what it means to be human is that humans are actually divided into classes, the rich and the financially unstable. Unlike other species, humans do not work together to better the community instead they work to benefit themselves. A part of what it means to be human is that humans have belief systems such as Islam, Christianity, etc. Without our belief systems or cultures/traditions, humans would not have a purpose. Given this information, the sociology concept of structural functionalism helps determine what it means to be human because of human social institutions and human belief systems.

Secondly, throughout Anthropology, the concept of Primatology and Special human characteristics helped determine what it means to be human. A part of what it means to be human is what makes us unique from other species. Throughout our evolution, our ancestors(the homo-sapiens) had to learn how to adapt to the changing world, they evolved unique characteristics and skills that make us uniquely human. Ian Tattersall said, “It’s not ‘what is human,’ but what is unique: our extraordinary form of symbolic cognition”(Tattersall). There are many special human characteristics that make us uniquely human. The first characteristic that differentiates humans from other species is the ability to change our environment. Other species like primates do not have the ability to change their environment to their liking. Because of the ability to change the environment, humans have the ability to overpopulate at an uncontrollable rate since they can live anywhere. The second characteristic that makes us uniquely human is language. Humans are the only species known to create and use a grammatical language with the physical ability of speech in order to protect, share knowledge, and express feelings. Obviously, some species do have some sort of method of communication, but humans are the only species known to have the ability to say a full sentence. The last characteristic that differentiates humans from other species is their learning capacity. Humans’ brains are known to be bigger than any other species like primates to be exact. Humans have the ability to learn things quickly and use their intelligence to evolve. In conclusion, being human means having special characteristics like the ability to change our environment, language, and learning capacity, that differentiate us from other species

Lastly, throughout psychology, the concept of the isolated child(Genie) helped Psychologists determine what it means to be human. The tragic incident of the isolated child occurred when a beautiful baby girl was raised in complete isolation and captivity. This incident captured every psychologist’s attention during that time. Because of this incident Psychologists figured out that “being human” means having exposure to human contact and other caring adults. Because Genie was raised in complete isolation and had a lack of comfort, she lacked a lot of aspects. Genie could speak a few words, such as “blue”, “orange”, “mother” and “go”, but mostly remained silent and undemonstrative. She shuffled with a sort of bunny hop and urinated and defecated when stressed. Doctors called her the most profoundly damaged child they had ever seen(Carrol, 2016). This essentially means that humans’ exposure to other caring adults is more important than genetics. After scientists started working with her, Genie had the ability to play, chew, dress, and enjoy music. She expanded her vocabulary and sketched pictures to communicate what words could not. She also performed well on intelligence tests. This essentially means that, with proper human exposure, Genie was able to communicate and express her feelings. Without proper human exposure, humans would not be able to eat, communicate and do other basic stuff needed for humans to survive. In conclusion, being human means having proper human exposure and comfort from other caring adults.

In conclusion, the contributions of sociology, anthropology, and psychology helped determine what it means to be human. The concept of sociology, structural functionalism, helped determine that human societies function differently from other species. The concept of anthropology, primatology, and special human characteristics determined what it means to be human because they proved what makes us unique and distinguishable from other species. Lastly, the concept of psychology, the isolated child, proved that one of the things that make us human is our exposure to other caring adults.