Occupy Wall Street is a movement, whose purpose is to fight against the excess of the Wall Street. The followers of the movement decried the apparent rate of income inequality; pushing for economic rights of the 99%. The bottom 90% of Americans earns yearly an average of $31,244 while the top 1% is making an average of $1,137,684.
Further, compare that the top 1% have 34.6% of American GDP while the bottom 90% contribute 26.9% of GDP. Without considering, top 1% in the apparent American income inequality equation, it falls from the current 11% to 6%.
Though 50% of the top 1% has a distribution among various professions, Wall Street contributes close to 50% of the top 1% richest Americans. First, directly through top executives and financial professions who make each 31.0% and 13.9% respectively of this group, combined they are over 40%.
Secondly, addition of some lawyers (8.4%), especially considering the substantial number of layers in business law and the total sum of the group, who derive wealth from the Wall Street, is close or just above 50%. Looking into the income distribution within corporate America validates this point: the average employee makes close to 185 times less than average top Executive.
The changing fortunes of American economy indicate a growing income inequality in America and blaming income inequality to the top 20% instead of top 1% Americans is hypocritical: it is just a means to pacify the common person to get less people to join the movement. Over the years, income of the bottom 90% Americans has been constant; meanwhile, the top 1% has grown from just above $400,000 to $1,137,6849 (1980- 2008).
Even after the recent world financial crisis, while the American and European have had economic recovery job creation has been low in comparison to growth. More and more Americans are working at multiple jobs since 1990; increasingly less are under unions, more jobs move to other countries than job creation within USA.
The results are drastic. The minimum wage has grown 21% since 1990 while the cost of living by 67%. Wall Street profits grew by 720% between 2007 and 2009; also growing over this period, is the rate of employment at 102% while home equity fell by 55%.
The top 10 richest congress members are worth a combined $2.8 billion. The rest are not considerably rich as this group but have an average wealth of $912,000. The first group all voted for Bush tax cuts; these among other tax breaks favoring rich are quite significant. Especially considering that while the average income of top 400 richest grew by 392% (1992-2007), their taxation rates fell on average by 37%.
In conclusion, ideal and current class stratification of American society is unfavorable: in comparison to top 1% average yearly income of $1,019,089, top 0.01% 0.1% make $2,802,020; top 0.01% earn $23,846,950 on average over the same period while bottom 90% earn $31,244.
Certainly, Occupy Wall Street movement with its chant, claiming they are the 99%, has a valid argument for rebelling against the existing income inequality in USA.
Though people believe that they live in the world full of equal rights and opportunities, there are still many controversial situations when the questions of a gender, race, or age are raised. Many communities are challenged by the necessity to protect their freedoms and prove their positions, and gender relationships remain to be a crucial topic for consideration in different fields. Certain attempts have been already taken to protect the rights of women, including the claims of feminism in movies, the representation of gender contradictions from a theoretical point of view, and numerous artist works (Mesch, 2014). One of the recent achievements is the creation of the “Fearless Girl”, a bronze statue in front of the Charging Bull on Wall Street that causes a number of discussions, debates, disagreements. The role of the “Fearless Girl” remains to be significant for the modern society because this statue proves the existence of gender inequalities, promotes the investigation of the past gender relationships, and demonstrates that people are ready to re-evaluate the place of women in different spheres of life.
“Fearless Girl” Creation Details
Wall Street before the “Fearless Girl”
During the last several decades, millions of Americans get used to hearing the Wall Street bell that signalizes about an opening of a new trade session. Every day, a new celebrity is invited to open the session, including different political figures, actors, singers, and even comic heroes like Spider Man (Knight, 2014). Despite the existing variety of celebrities and icons in front of the activate button, there is always the same image people are able to observe on the Wall Street –the famous Charging Bull statue, also known as the “Wall Street bull”. This impressive financial landmark was created by Di Modica in 1987 as a reaction to the events of the Black Monday stock market crash (Knight, 2014).
During the last 30 years, this statue was a sign of financial power, competitiveness, and the American potential to cope with challenges. Despite a number of protests and criticism around the bull, including a dancer who crowned the bull as a reflection to the economic crash in 2008, the statue has become one of the most influential and strongest images in popular culture (Mesch, 2014). Peck (2017) calls the bull as one of “Wall Street’s most masculine, powerful symbols” (para. 1). With time, the fact that the statue represented the power of one particular gender caused numerous concerns and debates in society. It was necessary to make a change that can properly introduce the nature of the American nation and not worsen the heritage left by the Charging Bull.
“Fearless Girl” on the Wall Street
Nowadays, thousands of New York citizens and tourists have a picture with the bronze statue that faces the Wall Street bull. However, not all people might know the history of its creation and the intentions supported by its developers. On March 7, 2017, the day before the International Women’s Day, the residents of the Wall Street were able to observe a new bronze sculpture facing the bull (Stein, 2017). It was not a too high girl with her hands on her hips and her chin straight up, proving her confidence and readiness to resist the already gained power of the bull. The designers of the sculpture, Lizzie Wilson and Tali Gumbiner, were proud of the work done (Stein, 2017). They were managed to combine their enthusiasm with the existing gender problems and inequalities. It was not enough for them to present a new statue. It was necessary to develop a new image that could be as effective and informative as the already offered Charging Bull. Therefore, the “Fearless Girl” became “a symbol of women working to overcome the gender gap across many industries and announced its plan to help by pressuring companies to add more women to their boards” (Vullo, 2017, para. 1). In this statue, every detail plays an important role, including the height, the position, the location, and even the mood people can recognize while looking at the girl.
Gender Inequalities in Today’s World
Nowadays, in many counties, a tendency to support and respect people’s freedoms and rights is frequently developed. Many people, in spite of their age or race, like to develop debates about the role of a gender in their everyday lives, as well as in their business development, employment opportunities, and even health care. The investigations of Kimball (2017) show that, in many countries, model policies and guidelines have been developed in respect to gender equality with only 70% of them being properly implemented. Galman’s (2017) analysis of the articles emphasizes the existence of “intersectionality, complexity, and contextuality” that promote gender work “as impacted by anything” (p. 207). In fact, the question of gender inequality in modern society may be developed in a variety of ways. Its main peculiarity is the inability to create one particular wrong or right answer and develop a clear position that can hardly be judged.
The topic of gender inequalities is provocatively raised in the bronze statue of the girl. On the one hand, the girl proves male aggression and strength, putting the position of Di Modica, the creator of the Charging Bull, in question. On the other hand, the girl turns out to be a symbol of female strength and readiness to resist the male environment. The presence of the girl in front of the bull creates a new look at the development of gender relationships in the fields of business and management. The level of hostility supported on the Wall Street in regard to women who want to achieve success and recognition in finance is hard to predict, especially by those people who are not directly involved in those activities. However, the idea of “Fearless Girl” on the Wall Street has been already supported by more than 28,000 people of both genders (Miller, 2017). Even if the sculpture is removed with time, its effects cannot be forgotten.
Gender Question and the Public Opinion
Gender inequality on Wall Street has not been proved as a question of revolutionary injustice. Though people may observe the existing prevalence of male figures in the fields of business, finance, and management, it is actually hard to prove that this situation can be explained by male power and restriction but not by female unwillingness to participate in these fields. There are many women who are satisfied with their positions and the attitudes men demonstrate to them. Still, the bronze girl facing the bull should not be treated as a serious confrontation with male power only. It may be introduced as a symbol of female power that can be used in everyday life, not in gender debates only. Vullo (2017) suggests observing the girl as the lesson that is usually taught by many parents to their baby girls “to be bold and to not allow others to limit what I could achieve” (para. 2). Therefore, the girl on the Wall Street may not be a protest to the existing gender inequality or the prevalence of male power in finance. It may be a symbol of inspiration and support for all those women and girls who are not ready to resist the modern world but wait for some outside inspiration and support.
It is possible to believe that women are not the only ones who want to improve the world of finance and business by the presence of both genders in the field. The girl represents the future many people continue dreaming of (Peck, 2017). It is easy to find a man or even a company of men who understand that the presence of a woman in the field is a serious and effective contribution. It is a possibility to observe the facts from a new perspective. It is a chance to develop the same activities in a new way. The examples of such new waves in the workplace can be observed in such movies as What Women Want starring Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt or Erin Brockovich starring Julia Roberts. These movies, as well as the “Fearless Girl”, can help women understand that they have enough powers and reasons to demonstrate their abilities, to prove their rights, and to use their knowledge to improve the future of the society they or their children have to live in.
The uniqueness of the gender question represented on the Wall Street is also connected with the possibility to discuss the role of women as the future people choose. The power of men is surely one of the most working and effective tools to promote social development, technological progress, and desirable changes. The Charging Bull was the image of the people’s readiness to resist various financial challenges and crashes. It was the image of power and abilities to inspire optimism after such serious tests as the Black Monday (Knight, 2014). As soon as one new figure appears in front of the icon with a 30-year-old history, people are ready to forget about the role of the bull and introduce new interpretations and new visions. Therefore, the “Fearless Girl” may also be used as a tool with the help of which it is possible to check the nation, its devotion to what has been achieved, and its respect for traditions.
Helpful Lessons from the Wall Street
There are many lessons that could be learned from the girl that appeared on the Wall Street at the beginning of 2017. The first and the most evident issue is the necessity to understand that the American society is not ready to solve the problem of gender inequality. Even the fact that many celebrities of both genders are invited to open the stock market daily, some people are ready to put the concept of equality in question.
According to the developers of the girl sculpture, its imaged caused a certain deluge of excitement and some portion of controversy that could be used as evidence of the work done well (Stein, 2017). Such conclusions and reactions may be defined as another important lesson of the Wall Street. The creation of the girl was caused not by the necessity to prove female rights and opportunities. The statue was created as an opposition to the already offered image of the bull. It was a protest not to support women but to make them ready to fight or oppose something. Therefore, to achieve the positive results, support women, and make the correct judgments and improvements, the clarification of the goals and the choice of appropriate methods play an important role.
Finally, the attention to the girl paid through media cannot be neglected. In different sources, it is possible to find various attitudes to the image of the girl and its effects on the Charging Bull. For example, Kimball (2017) indicates that the girl has to be removed because it makes the bull not as a symbol of strength and positive readiness to cope with challenges, but as a threat or a kind of protest regarding the role of women in business. At the same time, there is a position that “men who don’t like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl” (Kimball, 2017, p. 32). These contradictions do not make it possible to understand a true worth of the statue. Still, it becomes clear that one small figure that may lead to a number of challenges and conclusions.
Pros and Cons of the “Fearless Girl”
Taking into consideration the lessons learned from the Wall Street, the evaluation of the past relationships between genders, and the necessity to understand why gender inequality is still a problem in many countries, the role of the “Fearless Girl” may be characterized by certain positive and negative aspects. To support the image of the girl in front of the bull, such pros as the recognition of the role of women, the promotion of a new meaning of the statues, and inspiration that is available to all people should be defined. The “Fearless Girl” shows that it is possible to put the already offered idea in question and achieve new positive results.
However, it is also necessary to underline the negative issues that cannot be ignored. First, the girl changes the meaning of the Charging Bull and the positive attitude it contained during the last 30 years (Vullo, 2017). Another doubtful outcome is the inability to understand the intentions of its creation. If there was a need to promote new debates and contradictions between the genders, then the developers succeeded in their goal. However, it is necessary to remember that the Wall Street is the financial center of the United States. It should not be challenged by new conflicts and opposition. The task is to unite people and strengthen the nation against any possible outside threats.
Conclusion
In general, the image of the “Fearless Girl” has a strong influence on the Americans, as well as the representatives of other nations. The developers of this statue wanted to prove that the bull, as a symbol of masculine power, is not the only tool that can be used to promote the prosperity and success of the United States. The power of women should never be neglected, and the girl confronting the bull is the symbol to support this thought. However, the developers and supporters of this figure should think about a new possible role of the girl on the Wall Street. It is possible to change the location of the girl and place it not in front of the bull but next to it as a symbol of the cooperation of both genders and the readiness of the American people, despite their gender, to deal with any challenge or threat that may come from the outside.
Occupy Wall Street was a protest campaign that started on September 17, 2011, in New York’s Zuccotti Park (Leonhardt). The movement’s main purpose was to draw attention to economic and social inequality and to eliminate the impact of corporations on policy-making. The majority of participants were white young adults who had college educations and were underemployed or unemployed (see fig. 1). Moreover, they had substantial debts that they were unable to pay off.
Fig. 1. Members of Occupy Wall Street Movement (Leonhardt).
The movement’s slogan was “We are the 99%.” The motto referred to the inequality of income and distribution of wealth between the top 1% of the United States’ wealthiest citizens and the remaining population (see fig. 2). Hundreds of protesters occupied the park for nearly two months. On November 15, 2011, they were forcibly removed by the New York Police Department (Leonhardt). However, the movement had long-lasting effects that can still be noticed in the US and all over the world.
Fig. 2. Who Are the 1 Percent? (“A Movement of Numbers: Occupy Wall Street”).
The statistics of Occupy Wall Street are as follows:
the age of protestors: 24 and under – 23.5%, 25-44 – 44.5%, 35 and older – 33%, 45 and older – 20%;
the level of education: college – 60.7%, graduate school – 29.4%, high school or lower – 8%;
gender: male – 61%, female – 37.5%, other – 1.5%;
ethnicity: white – 81.2%, Hispanic – 6.8%, Asian – 2.8%, African American – 1.6%, other – 7.6%;
annual income: between $50,000 and $80,000 – 15%, over $75,000 – 13%, over $150,000 – 2% (“Occupy Wall Street Statistics and Demographics”).
The Movement’s Purpose
Occupy Wall Street was an unprecedented event in the history of the US, as it was the shortest movement that managed to produce such profound outcomes. The campaign attracted much attention from the society and media. The purpose of the movement was to attain equality for US citizens in terms of economic and social relations. According to Moore, Occupy Wall Street managed to achieve its aim since it “struck a new nerve, sending a shock wave” through the country. A few hundred young people who initiated the protest action and participated in it were doing what many millions of citizens had always dreamed of (Moore). Citizens who had lost the “American Dream” and who had no jobs or career prospects proclaimed their desire to change the predominating state of affairs in the country. According to experts, one of the reasons why the movement managed to reach its goal was because it did not follow any strategic pattern (Moore). Protesters did not have a hierarchical organization. Neither did they have a leader, speakers, or structure and responsibilities. Still, the voices of the people were heard, and they were able to make a change they wanted.
The investigation of the movement’s legacy on its second anniversary reiterated the conclusions made by contemporary analysts. Although income inequality had grown, allowing the top 1% of Americans to earn 19% of household income, Occupy Wall Street altered the way “the country talks about the economy” (Wagstaff). The protest helped to ingrain in the national conscience the notion that the existing inequality levels were unacceptable, and that people had the right to demand a change (Wagstaff). Even if the movement did not put an end to global capitalism, it developed some essential talking points. As Wagstaff remarks, the slogan “We are the 99%” had much more power to unite citizens than any lecture could have. According to researchers, the purpose of Occupy Wall Street was reached with the help of unusual approaches and ardent participants who believed in what they were doing and, thus, were convinced that they were doing it right.
Occupy Wall Street and Antifa
Antifa is an anti-fascist movement (hence the name) that is known for its violent and anarchist character (Bryce). The members of this group support communism and express antipathy to capitalism (see fig. 3). They claim to represent an attempt to eradicate the “American Plantation” (Bryce). The representatives of Antifa maintain that slavery exists in every minority community. Still, there are many whites among the group’s members. According to Bryce, the supporters of Antifa want freedom and liberation, but they want these “on their own terms” rather than the way they were defined by the Constitution. Interestingly, although this movement is not peaceful, it is believed to have originated from the nonviolent Occupy Wall Street Movement of 2011 (Bryce). The Occupy movement’s aim was reaching social and economic justice, and Antifa members claim that they are trying to accomplish similar purposes (Bryce). However, it is evident that Antifa’s tactics are far from peaceful, and the group’s militarism puts the lives of its members, as well as the lives of other citizens, at risk. Bryce remarks that while the Occupy Wall Street Movement faded after the 2012 re-election of Obama, it was brought to life again in 2016 upon Trump’s victory (“Shocking! Violent Antifa Protest Dead Woman’s Memorial”). Sadly, the perspectives of Antifa and its predecessor are quite dissimilar.
Fig. 3. Antifa Movement Members (Bryce).
Some researchers consider the appearance of Antifa to be more than just a consequence of Occupy Wall Street. For instance, Hayward notes that Antifa was a “fringe group reinventing itself as the anti-war movement” in the years of Bush’s presidency, during Occupy Wall Street, in the Black Lives Matter upsurge of 2016, and in its current form. Each time, the representatives of this “fringe group” have had the same organization pattern and used the same networks (Hayward). Therefore, researchers agree that Antifa has its roots in Occupy Wall Street. However, they emphasize that the methods and aims of these movements are not the same. Antifa employs violence and has strong anti-racist positions, whereas Occupy Wall Street strived for social and economic equality for people irrespective of race and ethnicity.
Occupy Wall Street as a Springboard for Other Movements
The popularity of Occupy Wall Street made Americans feel more optimistic and hopeful, which led to the rebirth of such movements as progressivism and radicalism. As a result, one possible consequence is that the protest became a springboard for the renaissance of the US labor movement. As Binh remarks, Occupy Wall Street mobilized “more workers and oppressed people in four weeks than the entire American socialist left has in four decades combined.” Thus the movement grew into an uprising that significantly changed the political landscape of the country. Putting an end to the protest did not destroy its ideas but scattered them all around the country and encouraged oppressed workers to unite their power and promote initiatives that would improve their lives. According to Binh, new movements do not consider themselves successors of Occupy Wall Street, but they would not have appeared without its “heroic example.”
There have been several reflections of the 2011 protest in recent labor movement developments. After Occupy Wall Street, there has been a rise in labor unions’ ethos of “solidarity, collective action and questioning of managerial authority” (Bussel). Initiatives have been undertaken to deal with the existential crisis faced by labor unions. With the help of Occupy Wall Street’s success, these projects offer “glimmerings of hope” that the floundering labor movement can recover its legitimacy and sense of relevance (Bussel). The impact of Occupy Wall Street on the progressive changes in the labor movement is crucial since the events of 2011 helped to draw attention to wealth and income inequality. As a result, attempts have been made at all levels of government in the US to raise the minimum wage, regulate part-time workers’ schedules, and provide paid sick days (Bussel). Therefore, it is fair to say that Occupy Wall Street served as a springboard for the US labor movement’s rebirth.
Works Cited
Binh, Pham. “Occupy: Rebirth of American Radicalism.” The North Star, 2012, Web.
Occupy Wall Street is a movement, whose purpose is to fight against the excess of the Wall Street. The followers of the movement decried the apparent rate of income inequality; pushing for economic rights of the 99%. The bottom 90% of Americans earns yearly an average of $31,244 while the top 1% is making an average of $1,137,684.
Further, compare that the top 1% have 34.6% of American GDP while the bottom 90% contribute 26.9% of GDP. Without considering, top 1% in the apparent American income inequality equation, it falls from the current 11% to 6%.
Though 50% of the top 1% has a distribution among various professions, Wall Street contributes close to 50% of the top 1% richest Americans. First, directly through top executives and financial professions who make each 31.0% and 13.9% respectively of this group, combined they are over 40%.
Secondly, addition of some lawyers (8.4%), especially considering the substantial number of layers in business law and the total sum of the group, who derive wealth from the Wall Street, is close or just above 50%. Looking into the income distribution within corporate America validates this point: the average employee makes close to 185 times less than average top Executive.
The changing fortunes of American economy indicate a growing income inequality in America and blaming income inequality to the top 20% instead of top 1% Americans is hypocritical: it is just a means to pacify the common person to get less people to join the movement. Over the years, income of the bottom 90% Americans has been constant; meanwhile, the top 1% has grown from just above $400,000 to $1,137,6849 (1980- 2008).
Even after the recent world financial crisis, while the American and European have had economic recovery job creation has been low in comparison to growth. More and more Americans are working at multiple jobs since 1990; increasingly less are under unions, more jobs move to other countries than job creation within USA.
The results are drastic. The minimum wage has grown 21% since 1990 while the cost of living by 67%. Wall Street profits grew by 720% between 2007 and 2009; also growing over this period, is the rate of employment at 102% while home equity fell by 55%.
The top 10 richest congress members are worth a combined $2.8 billion. The rest are not considerably rich as this group but have an average wealth of $912,000. The first group all voted for Bush tax cuts; these among other tax breaks favoring rich are quite significant. Especially considering that while the average income of top 400 richest grew by 392% (1992-2007), their taxation rates fell on average by 37%.
In conclusion, ideal and current class stratification of American society is unfavorable: in comparison to top 1% average yearly income of $1,019,089, top 0.01% – 0.1% make $2,802,020; top 0.01% earn $23,846,950 on average over the same period while bottom 90% earn $31,244.
Certainly, Occupy Wall Street movement with its chant, claiming they are the 99%, has a valid argument for rebelling against the existing income inequality in USA.
The economy and politics in the world are run by the minority of rich and powerful. These are people with the most wealth and control of the country’s or nation’s resources. They own most properties and most luxurious places and businesses. “Occupy Wall Street” was a form of public protest towards the rich and powerful of the world and specifically those in America and the government.
It was started by a Canadian magazine called “Adbusters”. It offered people to go out to Wall Street and protest the unequal distribution of economic power between people of higher class and middle class. Also, it was because the government and laws, seem to favor those with the most money, so in reality, money is making money. The taxes are not significant enough for the corporations and businesses that run the majority of the economy, not to mention politics. Morally, people were outraged that 1 percent of Americans own the majority of the country and the other 99 percent are left with nothing, trying their hardest to get from day today. The people were mostly younger but later all ages and ethnicities joined in. They also demanded more jobs to be created for the people and a lawful and beneficial to all solution regarding the taxation and financial gains of the population (Schechter, 2012). Economically, the middle class is not able to advance itself, as all the resources and “avenues” towards success are taken and controlled by the wealthy.
Utilitarian ethics state that people must all reach happiness and do this equally. In American society this demands a certain structure of the corporate world. The fact that some people and organizations receive more opportunities and resources than others, created a dissonance between those leading regular lives and having regular jobs and those connected “higher up” and becoming even more successful using their enormous amounts of money (Wolff, 2006). The fact that wealth is distributed based on one aspect—principal, is not equal and fairly distributed among people. According to statistics, the 1 percent’s income grew by 275 percent from the year 1970 to 2007 while the other 99 percent of the population have only gained 18 percent (Schechter, 2012). The government’s structure favors those with wealth, as it also gets some part of it in return. Those who support the majority, are the ones having hard labor jobs, receiving minimal salaries and those who benefit and use all the resources middle and lower class produce, make it with ease and unnoticeable change to their wealth amount. Kantian ethics are somewhat similar to utilitarianism. The common concept is morality and fairness. Kant’s ethics base themselves on the highest moral principles. A person who lives in a society must act according to the set rules and norms. The government and other regulatory bodies set the laws and regulations. But at the same time, every person is expected to behave according to their own moral code. In American society, people value their rights, freedoms and equality more than anything. Kantian ethics describe the highest moral truth that is universal to every human being. It is the feeling of what is right under any circumstances. A person cannot diverge from these criteria, as there is only one truth and the right way to act in a certain situation (Sullivan, 1994). The people of America were greatly outraged that they are disrespected by the changing truth. Their truth is related to hard work, high goals in education in order to amount to a self-respecting and moral person. But when society sees that those with power create their truth and moral code, which is based on money and power, they become outraged. Greed seems to be the truth of modern society and it is obvious to the naked eye. An example of both utilitarian and Kantian ethics about the abusive manner of economic make-up is the judicial system. It is made to make deals with the perpetrator and victims. The faster a deal is made, the faster and cheaper it will be for everyone. Also, it will be more beneficial because instead of a person going to jail and spending the government’s money, they instead pay the government to let them go. Those of middle and lower class do not always have the resources to strike a deal and so, they are forced to serve time, whereas those with money and power deliberately break the law. They are risking being caught but their wealth allows them the risk. If out of ten times of illegal activity they get caught once, the payoff is still very great. The system of society is made to benefit the rich and demoralize and press down those with fewer resources. Virtue ethics delves even deeper into human emotion and true reasons of fairness and just living. There are three concepts within virtue ethics; they are virtue itself, wisdom and eudaimonia. Virtue describes the quality of a person that relates to honesty and inner goodness. A person does not force themselves to be honest or fair. When a situation presents itself, a virtuous person can behave in only one way. The attitude and behavior are based on goodness and kindness. Modern American society, just as the majority of others, has come very far from kindness towards others. There is no denying that there are many people who are truly kind and often the news is heard in the media. When this happens people are shocked that there is still goodness in the world and this simple fact proves how rare it has become. If people responded with: “anyone would have done the same”, the world would be truly a utopian society. But it is not and the politics prove that over again. Wisdom is the smart and educated choice that a person makes in the everyday life. This is based on rationality and best-desired outcome, without forgetting others. The business world of today is indeed very wise. But it is wise negatively and sneakily. It is built on deception and making people believe in the system where there are those above and those below. The concept of eudaimonia relates to true happiness in personal and social life. This understanding is individual to everyone but if a person is happy, they extend their own happiness onto others, thus making the whole community and society happier. Virtue ethics unites all concepts of moral goodness, truth and best outcome for happiness. The world of today has come far from the three defining criteria of virtue ethics. People cannot be truly happy if they base it on money and power. The morality and kindness of a person are the real attributes of a happy life and confident existence (Carr, 2012). In reality, people who focus their whole life on money and power, have little true self-respect. If they use every cheap way to win a coin and every route to steal and deceive, they are not truly happy because their life’s goal is not on developing themselves but on acquiring more things around themselves.
In the present times the government determines the laws by which the majority of people behave. It is true that masses also have a say in the matters. The democracy gives people an opportunity to choose but the choice is limited and people cannot, all of a sudden, start a career in politics if they do not like the people they have to choose from. From the time of the first settlers, people wanted to acquire wealth and it could be seen in the violent ways of property acquisition. They did not care that the land belonged to someone else, that Native people have established a balance and were able to gain most in the mind and soul. The rest came naturally to them. The Europeans did not have time to think about true happiness. They simply took the land and if it was not given to them freely, they took it by force. This stays very representative of Western society and those who hold all the power and authority. The world is divided into those who want to gain more and those who want to better their own little corner and be treated with respect and decency. The protests and demonstrations like “Occupy Wall Street” are an example of people’s moral outbreak. Often, the time comes, when people have had enough and they want to change things. The law states that they must do it peacefully and no one really wants a violent and open conflict but the government and the authorities are forced to put down any acts of freedom or radical thinking because it threatens to destroy the established order, their order where they can gain more wealth and power from those who are helpless in the hands of tyrants. These people are similar to tyrants of the ancient world, only their ways are more democratic and business-like without bloody battles and wars. But even this can be argued, as recent history has shown that even though wars are the last resort, the governments plan on them and sometimes a conflict does break out. Most likely, the movement will disappear. People need to change the whole make-up of society. The reforms have to be made where each community has its say in their matters. The governments are too far away from people and their neighborhoods. It is unable to see the reality of people’s lives and what exactly is needed to better the conditions. Even when there is a conscious and moral leader and a good policy is enacted, by the time it goes through all the bureaucrats and other power-hungry authority figures, the effect of the good policy is lost in the process. People’s outrage is cyclical. They get fed up, they rise against the system, they are put down and for a while, they stay below the view. But sometimes the emotions and rage get so high that people do fight back and revolutions happen.
References
Carr, D (2012). Virtue ethics and moral education. New York, United States: Routledge.
Schechter, D. (2012). Occupy: Dissecting occupy Wall Street. New York, United States: Cosimo.
Sullivan, R. (1994). An introduction to Kant’s ethics. New York, United States: Cambridge University Press.
Wolff, B. (2006). Utilitarian and environmental ethics. Ann Arbor, United States: ProQuest.
In the recent past the world has been falling to its knees due to the financial meltdown in America. A brief view of the previous American administration shows that former president bush handed power to incumbent president Obama while the country was doing badly financially.
The poor financial record was one of the greatest in the recent past. Inflation was at its highest. However, when Obama took over that was slowly changing for the better. Things were looking up for America. A negative twist of events shows that the economy has gone down to the way it was. People have know decided to act on the trend by protesting as they believe the rich and strong have something to do with the current financial situation.
Riots have been erupting recently over the recent financial crisis in America and the world over. Wall Street being the financial district of the city of New York is the main center of attraction of the riots. Earlier on it was a place of peace and tranquility. People have gathered in large masses in Wall Street with the aim of camping there until their leaders get the message they are trying to send. (Clews and Niederhoffer, 156)
Main issue of the protestors
According to the protestors, their main aim of marching down Wall Street is to try and capture president Obama’s attention. The president ought to set up a commission or a taskforce to root out the financial ills carried out by the rich in America as they claim. According to the organizers of this protest Adbusters, the economy of America is controlled by the rich. Just like a threat mechanism or bully system, the capitol is belittled to make policies that favor the large corporate or the wealthiest companies.
This is what the protestors want to curb and have a free economy. From the articles in New York Times it is evident that the planning of the protests began at around mid 2011 through social media. Electronic media being the major player of this, emails were sent in bulk to receivers across the world. The intention was to come up with peaceful demonstration to send a message to the president of America.
This worked as thousand flocked in Wall Street new York to rally together against this economic malpractice.
Factual information of the Wall Street riots
The very first few days of the September protest began with vigor as many turned up to address their cause. It was peaceful although traffic and other businesses in the streets had to be diverted. Many people clogged the streets attracting the attention of the daily lives of the average New Yorker man. The first few days also saw people protesting overnight. Setting up of mobile tents and places to eat was also evident.
As the riots progressed, more and more attention was captured. Other groups apart from the Adbusters group then joined in. police attention was now as a very large group of people needs supervision. Groups such as the New York assembly joined in the cause of fighting for economic justice.
It was said by the protested that the rich people only make a small percentage of the American population. It is estimated that they make around one to two of the entire population. The rest being the majority are oppressed by the minority. Policies favoring the rich are made by the influence of money. (Stelter)
Journalists and their columns
With many people and groups joining in the protest, according to journalists, police scrutiny had to increase as hooligans emerged from the crowds. Looting and interruptions of businesses in Manhattan was witnessed. The peaceful protest was slowly giving way to rowdy and unorganized protest.
The protests were slowly becoming unruly as each group started addressing its own issues. This saw police using unnecessary force like pepper spraying individuals and arrests that were uncalled for. Barricaded streets and meshed lanes saw police draw lines between them and the protestors. (Greenhouse and Buckley)
Among other issues that were raised by the different groups were; A sloppy system was effective in the current government. This means that any person is not accountable to any wrong financial undertakings in America. Leaders n charge of the financial sector could not be subjected to accountability incase anything went wrong.
This in many years has seen people making financial blunders yet they go unpunished. This gives the individuals a chance to be corrupt and embezzle public money through unscrupulous ways. This illegal ways include tapping public money into private cooperates while altering the fiscal policies.
The protest proceeded to other parts of New York and slowly encroaching to the entire nation of America. By this time, it is days into the protest. Manhattan is now almost becoming unruly. Other cities also organize small protest so as to address their financial problems. (Kleinfield and Buckley)
World wide scale protests are now into place. The centered protest that began in New York is now in every corner of the world. Some of the other issues that are raised in the protest are people who are in the middle class economy wanting favorable policies on trade unions.
The unions are currently under economic strains and tightened policies that do not favor their operations. This is what the people are protesting against. Only people that are influential financially are elected into the highest financial positions. According to the protestors, America lacks economic equality. This has to be controlled to reduce the large financial gap between the rich and the poor. (Eckholm and Williams)
Tax concerns are also a major problem facing the poor American man. According to the protestors having tax difference between the rich and the poor being minimal, ensures that the rich are on an upper hand. The rich are able to make more with less taxation while the poor have little money with a large tax being imposed. This limits their financial ability and the chance to invest more. The rich ought to be taxed more so as to standardize the market gap.
What remains sketchy about the riots?
Media coverage of the whole protest was minimal. In some of the other cases or riots, media attention was comprehensive. The dismal coverage of the Wall Street riots leads people to a suspicious thought. According to some journalists, the reason why the coverage was little is because the media companies are owned by the large corporate that are being fought by the protestors
A good example of the large corporate that own media companies are the time Warner Company and the Walt Disney. Both of these companies are large in terms of commercial investment. Such companies are the ones that impose policies that will favor them. To shed light on the Wall Street protest would cause more harm to them.
Another sketchy bit on the riots is why online operations were minimized in Manhattan. Mobile phone users could not access the internet. The major reason why this was done is still unclear.
It is evident that police used some extra force on the public and some illegal arrests were made. The follow up to the wrong police officers is unknown. Little details show that the police shunned this unethical practice is unknown. Attention to show the plight of the protestors was so much that it overshadowed the illegal undertakings of the police.
Follow up of the actions to be taken after the riots remain sketchy. It is true that the riots got the attention of the American president but an actual and detailed follow up is still not clear. Those accused of financial misguiding still remain unpunished. Leaders are only looking for solutions without first investigating on the wrongdoers to avert possible recurring protests.
What still needs to be known
Some of the things that need to be known are the actual reason that is causing a financial crisis in America. Financial heavyweights may cause economic inequality in America but the system they actually use needs to be known. People of America act on the small or sufficient information they have. It may be true but still insufficient. They may riot to root out only what they know leaving the unknown still effective. A lot of research on the financial trends and activities needs to be carried out. (Flegenheimer)
The value or effectiveness of protesting needs to be known. What protesting does and does not do is what should be the question in every American and human in the world over. Other channels of communications need to be known to address the government. Some of the ways that alter corrupt systems in the past are known to work. Coming up with a social or a political unit to address the people needs to be discovered. At times a protest may prove futile when the crowds turn out to be unruly.
Buzzwords still used and how they are used
Due to the current global crisis and the march to protest on wall street a lot of buzz and talk has been generated in the world over the word wall street. Songs have been created with that title. Wall Street in some places now means going bad or even where money is made. When a country seems to face inflation, the word Wall Street is in every citizen to depict financial meltdown.
Although Wall Street is the financial district of New York, when protests broke out in other countries, the place of the protests is now referred to as Wall Street. (Lamb and Joanna, 35)
Wall Street according to some if the African Americans may also mean a place where all the corruption and financial injustice takes place. Ironically Wall Street can also be used to mean a place of democracy, opposite of the mentioned ills. Every American ghetto refers such places with the name. In rare cases Wall Street is used to depict a market or a trade center in the major American cities.
Outcome of the riots
The major outcome of the riots is that president Obama shifted attention to the current situation in the financial sector. Financial heads in every state of America are now keen to trace the record of every financial institution. Forums are being created to redistribute financial obligations in America.
The rest of the world has become aware of the financial situation in the world. The plight of the people has now been known. The protests have instilled in people the art of fighting for their rights. The world is now aware of their economical right and about corrupt government institutions that manage the finances.
Educated opinion on the matter
The current financial state of the globe is still hanging in the balance and it needs a sober and well calculated move to change this trend. Eradication of the unscrupulous and wealthy individuals influencing the financial situation of America is the key to a successful economy. The following are the ways that will save the situation.
Every community and people of all economic classes should be involved in making of the financial policies. Each group should come up with a representative. The representative should be a link between Washington and the people. Any communication to and fro the people should be made by the representative.
Forums should be put up to educate the public on financial issues and policies. The forums will ensure that people are aware of every change in the economy and then come up with ways to make it better.
Elite professionals should be involved in the making of the policies. Screening ought to be done to ensure that only the upright manage the financial situation of the country. This step will eliminate the corrupt individuals who are motivated by greed.
Lastly, transparency should be upheld in making the policies. Broadcasting every policy and asking for the public consent will eliminate the rules that only favor the rich in the society.
Works Cited
Eckholm, Williams. “Anti-Wall Street Protests Spreading to Cities Large and Small.” New York Times 2011: Al. Print.
Flegenheimer, Matt. “A Not-Really-on-Wall-St. Protest, but the Fallout Is Felt There.” New York Times 2011: Al. Print.
Greenhouse, Buckley. “Major Unions Join Occupy Wall Street Protest”, New York Times 2011: Al. Print.
Kleinfield, Buckley. ” Wall Street Occupiers, Protesting Till Whenever”. New York Times 2011: Al. Print.
Lamb, Joanna. Wall Street in History. New York, NY: Cosimo, Inc., 2005.
Niederhoffer, Victor, and Henry Clews. Fifty Years in Wall Street. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, 2006. Stelter, Brian. “Occupy Wall Street Protests a Growing News Story.” New York Times 2011: Al. Print.
Social, historic and personal isolation is one of the most widely discussed themes in literature. Indeed, there are many literature characters that confronted to society being outsiders. Some of them adhered strongly to their isolation and others found forces (or were too weak to confront the society) to become “ordinary people” and conform to the society… Two stories that are under consideration in this paper address the issues of personal, social and historic isolation of the individuals.
Melville’s most famous short story was “Bartleby the Scrivener, A Story of Wall Street”, pointing to a symbolic connection with the famous street, while my story “A Sudden Awakening” is a work that revolves around an individual who strives to prove his/her individuality while first going against the social norms and then prove personal self-respect.
Regardless the fact that the two stories were written in different times and under different historic and social conditions, as well as focus on characters that have nothing in common (age, occupation, character or motives), clearly that both stories have something to reveal about.
In this paper, we are going to compare and contrast the two stories and how they address the issues of social, historic and personal isolation, aloneness, nonconformity, class, materialism and self-centeredness. Two main characters of the stories face the problem of personal isolation and try to put themselves aside of generally accepted principles of social behavior, however, they do this in different ways and come to different results.
Herman Melville’s short story “Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street” reveals around the story of a “scrivener” or copyist who work for a low firm. Bartleby was a quiet and hard-working person who is the best worker among the three who also work at the firm.
However, the Lawyer considers him to be a good worker as Bartleby “might snatch it and proceed to business without the least delay” (Melville n. p.). However, the reader comes to understanding that Bartleby has “a bizarre nature” when he first pronounces words “I would prefer not to”.
It was the first sign that the copyist faced “some confrontation to society” and later, when we see his behavior, we come to a conclusion that Bartleby faced social, personal and historic isolation. His views did not fit the view of the society and that made him feel an outsider. The Lawyer characterized him, “but I waive the biographies of all other scriveners for a few passages in the life of Bartleby, who was a scrivener the strangest I ever saw or heard of” (Melville n. p.).
Bartley was a “mysterious” person for a reader, as we know nothing about his previous life and we cannot figure out why he refused any other work or favor proposed to him and said “I would prefer not to” each time. It may first seem that he was too self-conscious and self-centered, but, at the end of the story, we find out that it was an individual that had got himself into pathetic capitalistic slave-like state and it made him feel isolated.
In my story “A Sunned Awakening”, I write about a girl which also confronted society, but in her own way. She tried to express her self-confidence through her behavior and attitude to study:
I could have cared less about schoolwork… I also found myself absorbed in the trend of short skirts with a ratty looking white undershirt sticking out from under my uniform polo” (“A Sudden Awakening”, 1, 2).
It was a common way that teenagers made use of to show their confrontation to society, parents, as well as teachers and try to express themselves. First, it was just a behavior, but deep and very strong internal conflict was behind that behavior.
Thus, we can see that both stories reveal to personal isolation of the individual and, in fact, both characters have many common features. The first one is the feeling of personal detachment and conformation to the society. Bartleby and the girl felt the need to be different from others and both of them understood that the society they lived in did not want to accept their nature.
A lack of respect is probably a core reason that formed their attitude towards people. Bartley was a representative of a low society who worked in the firm that was situated at the business street where only “respectful” businessmen could feel comfortable. Thus, Bartleby was conscious of his purposelessness to that society and he also felt himself quite different.
He knew his responsibilities and his position and thus, he did no less and no more that it was required from him. The girl in my story felt almost the same, she took attempts to be a person people around wanted her to be (at least it was her personal opinion). The reason was hidden in her early childhood when her father:
Began to show a lack of respect towards me. Even though I will always be his daughter and he would never completely disregard me from his life, he began to lack faith in me in terms of how much potential I had in me (“A Sudden Awakening”, 1).
It was the first and the most important reason of her attitude towards herself and towards the society. Both characters lack the motivation. Bartleby was indifferent to everything that happened around him: he did not see any reason to eat good food or to live in a decent apartment.
He did not have any reason to communicate with other people: any invitation to spend time or dine in a company met his refusal, he continued to repeat “I would prefer not to”. “I would prefer not to” is a phrase that can characterize the girls’ attitude towards herself and other people.
She might say, “I would prefer not to study”, “I would prefer not to dress well” “I would prefer not to say truth to my parents”. Indeed, why would she prefer it, if nobody believes that she can be better that she is? Thus, both characters were indifferent to social opinion. Both of them believed that “the easiest way of life is the best” (Melville n. p.)
However, two stories have different finals. As a matter of fact, they are united in their differences. Regardless, the fact that both characters faced social and personal isolation, they expressed it in different ways. Bartleby worked hard, “Bartleby did an extraordinary quantity of writing. As if long famishing for something to copy, he seemed to gorge himself on my documents. There was no pause for digestion” (Melville n. p.). As opposed to him, the girl was idle and did not want to do anything, study in particular:
I needed to develop a way to deal with my stress and instead of enhancing myself, I found myself beginning to diminish. I was barely passing any of my classes and spending my free time trying to figure out ways to avoid having to do my homework. (“A Sudden Awakening” 1).
At first, both characters did not have any motivation to improve their lives. However, the girl was supported by her mother and she also, “told herself that everything would get better” (“A Sudden Awakening” 3). It was a starting point of the enhancement of her life and struggling with the problems.
As opposed to her, Bartleby refuse any support and preferred to starve to death rather than accept any help. Another reason that led both stories to different endings lies in the way of thinking of both characters. Bartleby was well aware of his difference and isolation, he saw no ways to change anything. As opposed to him, the girl did not feel isolated from the society, she had friend and a boyfriend, she communicated with other people.
However, she did not believe in her abilities and skills, but she got a chance to try to change something in her life and she achieved success. She figured out the way to prove her difference in a different way, as she said, “I lived up to my potential even though I had my reputation pulling me back” (“A Sudden Awakening” 6).
As we can see, both stories reveal to social, personal and historic isolation of the individuals. There are many common things among the two characters regardless the fact that they lived in different times and in different societies. Both of them confronted social norm, denied what people expected from them, behaved different from other people.
However, the two stories have different finals: Bartleby did not find forces and motivation to change his life, but the girl found support and proved her difference in a different way: she lived up to her potential.
Works Cited
Melville, Herman. “Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-street.” Web. “A Sudden Awakening”.
In the short story, Bartleby, The Scrivener: The Story of Wall Street, Herman Melville (1853) offers a glimpse into the life of one of the scriveners, Bartleby. Even after decades since its publication, the narrative is still widely debated among literary critics and scholars analyzing the unique nature of the main character, Bartleby. This character’s uniqueness is based on his extraordinary life and unpredictable and seemingly incomprehensible behavior. Bartleby goes into a downward spiral of life-based on his traumatic job experience and the environment in his new occupation, resulting in the depression he manifested in his actions and words.
Signs of Depression
The eventual point to which Bartleby reaches is his death caused by his improper eating habits. However, his unwillingness can be considered part of the behavior that broadly indicates his suffering from depression or schizophrenia. Specifically, his passive-aggressive behavior reveals his utter carelessness towards the world surrounding him, including his words, “I would prefer not to.” (Melville para. 20). He does not aspire to live as an ordinary person. Not only does he not eat properly, consuming only ginger nuts, but he also does not go out, lives in the office, and does not seek out any sources of happiness (Melville para 32, 46). He stops working simply because he “decided upon no more writing” (Melville para. 53). Hence, his seemingly outrageous behavior indicates that he had no will to live; he did not see any purpose in any activity, which is the common symptom of clinical depression. Therefore, Bartleby’s suffering with depression caused by his unwillingness to live is the first source of his downward spiral.
Previous Traumatic Job Experience
A more profound source of Bartleby’s attitude toward life might be based on his previous job. At the end of the story, the author presents the information that Bartleby previously worked at the Dead Letters Office until it was closed for administrative reasons (Melville para. 101). His responsibility at this job was to burn the letters sent to dead or vanished people. Such occupation might have profoundly affected Bartleby’s perception of life and death. He might have occasionally read these letters and became more sensitive or senseless to the conception of life and death. In other words, he might have lost meaning of life due to being systematically exposed to the evidence that indicated the ultimate end of human existence – death. Thus, such a previous traumatic job can be a primary reason for Bartleby’s descent towards depression.
New Job Environment
Bartleby’s new job as a scrivener at the law firm of the narrator might also have contributed to the escalation of his mental illness. The narrator’s description of the environment in which Bartleby worked, the people who worked there, and the job Bartleby ought to do hint that they might have further driven him into a downward spiral. Firstly, the narrator describes the physical environment in which Bartleby works as “deficient in what landscape painters call ‘life’” (Melville para. 5). The placement of Bartleby’s desk was next to the window without any view but some light (Melville para. 16). Such physical surroundings deprived of any signs of life might have contributed to Bartleby’s ennui and despair. Secondly, the job he did was absent of joy and curiosity since the narrator described it as “dull, wearisome, and lethargic” (Melville para. 18). Thus, although it would be mistaken to say that his new job is the cause of his mental condition, it might have contributed to the escalation of his pre-existing state of depression.
Conclusion
To conclude, Herman Melville’s story gives insight into the life of the seemingly ordinary person, who has no turning back due to clinical depression, previous traumatic job, and new job environment. The last job that intensely exposed him to the conception of death has caused his mental condition. Meanwhile, his new career further exacerbated the situation that he could not turn back to a better, meaningful life. As a result of his profound unwillingness to live by refusing to eat, he eventually died of hunger.
Work Cited
Melville, Herman. “Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall-Street.” Columbia University – Eben Moglen, 1856, Web.
“Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street” is a story of American literature classic Herman Melville, first published in 1853 in Putnam’s Magazine. The work’s plot revolves around a modest employee named Bartleby who, initially performing his work assiduously, begins resisting any changes and refuses to do any tasks in his professional and personal life. The problem of rebellious nature and interaction between the narrator, an elderly lawyer, and Bartleby takes the central place in the story. This paper aims to provide reflection on how this piece of literature can be used to convey core Christian ideas.
Under a superficial glance, it seems that the novel only narrates the tragic life of an individual who gradually starts to slide into a deep depression or acquire some mental disorder such as schizophrenia. The main character Bartleby becomes inactive, reserved, and difficult, giving a single answer to all requests: “I would prefer not to.” He totally stops performing his daily duties and caring for himself, thereby manifesting a specific protest against society. Even when the lawyer tries to encourage Bartleby to work, he resolutely refuses, without the clarification of his passivity.
However, if the readers dive deeper into the work, they reveal that Melville’s central ptoblem implicitly concerns human indifference. In particular, the narration was written in the period marked as the dawn of Capitalism that ultimately changed attitude toward people. Under this concept, persons have become perceived as instruments in the productive working system, not as the supreme creation of God, with his or her talents, soul, and uniqueness. Despite the narrator’s sympathy for Bartleby and efforts to incentivize him, he is not interested in Bartleby’s life and problems. The lawyer does not attempt to investigate the reasons for the scrivener’s depression and seclusion. The narrator only leaves him on his own and even moves to another office because the weird man thwarts his business by his presence. Eventually, although Bartleby does commit nothing criminal, he is placed in prison. In Scripture, Jesus especially condemns coldness and indifference to other people, indicating that without sacrificial love, even insignificant, individuals cannot be genuinely happy.
Wall Street is a film about two stockbrokers who are corrupted by greed and an insatiable lust for power. The film stars Michael Douglas as Gordon Gecko, an ambitious stockbroker who uses clandestine means to feed his avarice.
The film also stars Charlie Sheen as Bud Fox, a young and equally ambitious stockbroker. Gecko takes Fox under his wing. Fox becomes Gecko’s apprentice and is easily swayed by his newfound extravagant lifestyle.
The Matrix stars Lawrence Fishburne as Morpheus, an infamous computer hacker on the run from government agents. It is later revealed that Morpheus is in fact the captain of a ship known as the Nebuchadnezzar. Morpheus actually lives in a post-apocalyptic future where machines have successfully conquered most of the human race.
The Matrix also stars Keanu Reeves as Neo, a computer hacker who discovers that his world is actually an illusion created by the machines. The illusion enables the machines to use human bodies as a source of energy. Morpheus tells Neo that The Matrix is a computer-generated virtual world that has been used to subjugate the human race. He believes that Neo is a Messiah who will eventually destroy the illusion and free the human race.
Similarities in Wall Street and The Matrix
In The Matrix, Morpheus becomes Neo’s mentor. He teaches him how to survive in a hostile environment. The government agents are, in fact, computer-generated programs used to keep people sedated. They tend to kill anyone who becomes aware of their existence. Morpheus teaches Neo how to fight them within their virtual world. He shows Neo the tricks of the trade.
In Wall Street, Gecko also becomes Fox’s mentor. He teaches Fox how to steal assets from other companies. He shows him the tricks of the trade. He guides Fox on the road to success.
Morpheus is willing to sacrifice a few lives to save the world. Gordon Gecko is willing to sacrifice people’s livelihoods for financial success. In The Matrix, Morpheus kills a few police officers to help Neo escape. In Wall Street, Gecko teaches Fox how to protect his assets.
In Wall Street, the stock market serves as a learning institution for Bud Fox. Gecko teaches Fox how to cheat and steal his way through other people’s assets. In The Matrix, the virtual world is Neo’s learning institution. Morpheus teaches Neo how to navigate The Matrix. He shows him how to avoid agents.
Gecko uses Fox’s ambition to gear him towards financial success. Morpheus uses Neo’s ambition to gear him towards defeating the artificial intelligence residing in The Matrix.
Gecko convinces Fox that some rules are meant to be broken. He teaches Fox to use the loopholes of business to his advantage. He teaches him how to break certain rules in order to improve his financial status. Likewise, Morpheus teaches Neo how to bend the rules of physics within The Matrix. He teaches him how to exploit the resources at his disposal.
Both Morpheus and Gecko lead by experience. They show their corresponding apprentices that they are just as capable of carrying out the same tasks.
Gecko asks Fox to spy on a wealthy businessman. Gecko uses the information to buy shares from the man’s company thus improving his financial status. Likewise, Morpheus teaches Neo how to protect his teammates. On one occasion, Morpheus confronts powerful agents in order to save his crew.
Differences in Wall Street and The Matrix
Gecko is corrupt while Morpheus is righteous. Gecko helps Fox to usurp his own father. Morpheus uses all the resources at his disposal to help Neo save the world. Gecko manipulates Fox. He plans to steal from his father’s company. He tricks Fox by convincing him that he is not interested in the company.
Gecko has little regard for the consequences of his actions. He is willing to destroy his friends to get what he wants. He teaches Fox to do the same. Morpheus, however, teaches Neo to be careful of his actions. He tells him that everything he does in The Matrix could change the fate of the human race. Neo’s enemies are powerful.
Morpheus displays compassion for his crew while Gecko does not care about his employees. Morpheus treats his crew like a family while Gecko treats his employees like pawns. During an attack on the Nebuchadnezzar, Morpheus
When the agents capture Morpheus, Neo rescues him. When Gecko is arrested, Fox does nothing to save him. Morpheus’s leadership skills are obviously more profound than Gecko’s. Neo uses the skills that Morpheus has taught him to save his mentor. Fox uses his new-found skills to save himself. He betrays his mentor.
Morpheus believes in having a chain of command. Trinity is his subordinate. When the agents capture him, Trinity is left in charge of both the crew and the Nebuchadnezzar. Gecko, on the other hand, pretends to be Fox’s equal partner. He, instead, manipulates his apprentice.
He lies to Fox on several occasions. He tries to steal from Fox’s father. He does not believe in a chain of command. He prefers to be in control of all of his resources. He does not like to share his power.
Gecko is a manipulative leader while Morpheus is a tutor. Fox trusts Gecko to run his father’s company. He is easily swayed by the set of principles that Gecko has taught him. He makes his decisions based on what he has been taught. Neo, however, learns to forge his own path.
He emulates Morpheus but he also makes his own decisions. Before he rescues Morpheus, he tells Trinity that he is not the prophesied Messiah. Nevertheless, Neo does his level best to save his mentor.
Neo impresses his mentor while Fox financially destroys Gecko. Later, in the film, Neo discovers that he is “The One”. He trusts his instincts and defeats agent Smith. Before the credits roll, Neo resolves to continue Morpheus’s mission. He implies that he will continue to find others who are willing to learn the truth about The Matrix.
Fox, however, decides to attack Gecko by going after his assets. He uses his skills of manipulation to trick Gecko. He ensures that Gecko’s stock prices decline by convincing other shareholders to dump their stocks.
Gecko teaches Fox the importance of self-reliance. He convinces Fox that self-preservation is better than friendship. He teaches Fox to trust no one. Fox uses this knowledge to betray Gecko. He collects evidence against Gecko in order to save himself. Morpheus, however, teaches Neo that humanity is sacred. He develops a bond with his student. Neo forges a lasting friendship with Morpheus.
