Reichtum und Armut Aufsatz

Ich habe ein Aufsatz geschrieben, das um Armut und Reichtum, und die Verantwortung der Reichen geht. Es hat ein A bekommen.

Inwiefern liegt es an den reichen Ländern, Armut in den Entwicklungsländern zu bekämpfen?

                Studien haben gezeigt, dass ungefähr 900 Millionen Menschen weltweit an Hunger leiden. Ausserdem besitzen die reichsten 62 Personen des Planetens zusammen 1,76 Billionen Dollar – ebenso viel wie die ärmere Hälfte der Menschheit. Das zeigt ein Report, den die Entwicklungsorganisation Oxfam gerade vorgelegt hat. Diese Zahlen beschreiben eine Unverschämtheit, wenn man die Tatsache in Betracht zieht, dass Kinder besonders von Unterernährung betroffen sind. Während Leute Nutze aus Steueroase im Westen ziehen, ist Südasien die Region mit den schlechtesten Werten in Bezug auf Hunger, dicht gefolgt von Afrika südlich der Sahara. Diese Kluft zwischen Armen und Reichen wird in nahezu jedem Land der Welt immer gröβer, dennoch soll es die Verantwortung der reichen Ländern, Armut in den Entwicklungsländern zu bekämpfen und die Kluft zu verringern.

                Es gibt eine Auswahl von Gründen, wieso es Armut in den Entwicklungsländern gibt. Manchmal gibt es Ursachen, die auβerhalb unsere Kontrolle sind. Beispielsweise nachdem indonesienzerstörenden Tsunami, gab es sowohl rund 130,000 bestätigte Unfallverluste, als auch 500,000 verdrängte Völker. Trotz der erheblichen Auswirkungen dieser Katastrophe, gab es wenig, dass reichen Ländern machen können hätten. Auβerhalb die Hilfsmittel, die geschickt wurde, damit Gemeinschaften umgebaut werden könnten, haben die reichen Ländern keine Kontrolle über das Wetter. Jedoch ist das kein Grund, keine Zeit durch freiwillige Arbeit aufzubringen. Wenn ich eine Erwachsene während dieses Zeitraums gewesen wäre, hätte ich als Freiwillige gearbeitet, damit Gemeinschäfte sucg schnell zur Nachwirkung der Katastrophe anpassen könnten.

                Aber es gibt andere Ursachen von Armut, wofür wir als reiche Ländern direct verantwortlich sind. Ich erinnere mich an eine Debate mit Herrn Shashi Tharoor, ein ehemaliger Regierungsminister, der die These aufgestellt hat, dass Groβbrittanien Reparationszahlungen Indien und ihre andere Kolonien heimzahlen soll, wegen der Verwüstung von Indien unter der britischen Herrschaft. Laut Tharoor, “Als Groβbrittanien kam an ihre Küste, war der indische Teil der Weltwirtschaft 23%. Als Groβbrittanien fuhr ab, war es nur 4%.” Ausserdem sagte er, der Prozent vom BIP als Hilfe sei nicht genug, Groβbrittanien sich für ihre Kolonialismus zu entschuldigen. Stattdessen soll Groβbrittanien das Prinzip der Reparationszahlungen akzeptieren, damit sie ihre Verantwortung direct nimmt. Und es ist nicht nur Groβbrittanien, sondern auch an anderen Ländern.

                Manchmal wird die Regierung widerwillig, diese Verantwortung zu übernehmen. In diesem Fall muss die Bevölkerung Druck auf ihre Regierung ausüben. Danach wird die druckbeaufschlagte Staatsgewalt keine andere Wahl haben, aber ärmeren Entwicklungsländern zu helfen. Wenn eine Bewegung die Hilfe der Regierung hätte, wäre es mächtiger. Ausserdem wäre es möglich, eine andere Ursache von Armut zu bekämpfen: korrupte Regime. Ich bin damit einverstanden, dass es nicht einfach ist, korrupte Regime zu stürzen obwohl es weltweit anerkannt ist, dass e seine ungleiche Verteilung von Land und Ressourcen gibt, wegen der korrupten Regime. Als nur ein Individuell muss ich zugeben, dass ich nicht enfach nach Moskau fliegen kann und Putin fragen, seine Regime zu verbessern. Was nicht heiβen soll, dass wir uns nicht al seine globale Gemeinschaft gegen Verdorbenheit vereinigen könnten. Es soll nicht um Politik und Weltverhältnisse gehen, sondern der Schutz der Benachteiligten.

                Viele Leute sind der Ansicht, dass wir zuerst die Armut im eigenen Land bekämpfen sollten, bevor wir die Armut in den Entwicklungsländern bekämpfen. Diese Leute haben recht, dass es immer noch Armut in den reichen Ländern gibt, es wird immer noch Armut geben, egal ob welche Land es ist. Man muss doch relative und absolute Armut unterschieden. Es gibt eine Aussicht, dass wenn jemand kein Fernsehen leisten kann, wird man arm und im Elend leben. Im Vergleich mit dem Rest von einer reichen Gemeinschaft, sieht es als ob jemand arm ist. Das ist relative Armut, aber absolute Armut ist total anders. Wieso machen diese Leute sich keine Sorgen für diejenigen, der ohne ein nationales Gesundheitssystem leben, oder ohne sanitären Anlagen bewältigen müssen? Als Folge davon komme ich zu meinem nächsten Punkt.

                Wenn es nach mir ginge, würde ich ein groβer Teil unserer Auslandshilfe in Medizinentwicklung investieren, damit es uns gelungen ist, medizinische Vorsorge zur Verfügung stellen. In den Entwicklungsländern ist es ein groβes Problem, wenn man sich an einer Krankheit wie Malaria leidet, obgleich es einfach zu verhindern ist, da nicht genug Medizinshilfe in diesen Ländern gegründet wurde. Die reiche Länder haben die Chance, das zu ändern, aber es soll nicht auf dem Edelmut der Wohltatigkeitsspender entfallen. Die jene, die die früher Meinung haben muss es im Kauf nehmen, dass während wir Sicherheit durch unsere Gesundheitssystem haben, sind die Bevölkerungen der Entwicklungsländer im Schadenpotenzial eingefangen worden. Obgleich man vorsichtig sein muss, die Lage nicht zu sensationalisieren, muss man auch merken, dass wenn es einen Abstand gibt, wird es einfacher, die Seriosität zu verringern. Es ist ein schmaler Grad!

                Es ist idealistisch zu sagen, dass man extreme Armut in der Welt abschaffen können wird. Ohne Zweifel wird es immer Armut geben, dennoch soll das nicht zu heiβen, dass wir nicht versuchen könnten Es wird immer Naturkatastrphe geben, die Gemeinschaften zerstören, und Völker versetzen werden. Aber es ist die Verantwortung der reichen Ländern, solche Gemeinschaften wiederaufzubauen. Warum sollten wir diese Verantwortung haben? Dürrenmatt sagte, wir seien alle kollektiv schuldig. Während wir unseren Annehmlichkeiten genieβen können, müssen die in den Entwicklungsländern wohnenden Leute leiden als Folge davon. Auf diese Weise können wir allermindestens versuchen, die erweiternde Kluft zwischen Reichen und Armen abzunehmen.

Interessanteste Thema des Werks

Diese Aufsatz hat alle Punkten bekommen.

Welches Thema in dem Werk des von Ihnen gewählten Dramatiker haben Sie am interessantesten gefunden? Warum?

„Der Besuch der alten Dame“ ist ein Theaterstück von dem schweizerischen Dramatiker Friedrich Dürrenmatt. Ich halte das Werk für eine moralische Geschichte mit der Struktur einer griechischen Tragödie, indem der Hauptcharakter, der Alfred Ill, die Rolle des griechischen Helden spielt. Es handelt sich um eine Auswahl von Themen, die meisten davon zusammenverbunden werden, wie zum Beispiel die Problematik der Gerechtigkeit, die Rache, der griechische Sinn von dem Schicksal und die Verdorbenheit der menschlichen Natur als Folge von Geld- und Machtgier. Wenn ich nicht das Stück tief studiert hätte, hätte ich nicht die philosophischen Auswirkungen solcher Themen geschätzt, demzufolge wäre meine Neugier wirklich geweckt hat, war das Thema und philosophische Debatte von der Gerechtigkeit: was wir mit der Gerechtigkeit meinen, wie die Gesellschaft die Gerechtigkeit ausübt und inwiefern es Ihr gelungen ist. Dürrenmatt beabsichtigte, solche Fragen aufzubringen.

                Als jemand, der sich für das Theater interessiert, ist es nötig, das Folgende in Betracht zu ziehen. Ohne dass man sich den Einfluss von Brechts Theorie und Praxis des epischen Theaters auf Dürrenmatts Dramatik deutlich macht, ist die Gesellschaftsbezogenheit seiner Literatur nicht angemessen zu verstehen. Seine ausführlichen Bühneanweisungen, besonders in der vor dem ersten Akt, spiegeln sich Brechts Vorstellungen vom epischen Theater, dessen Ziel ist, ein Abstand zwischen der Bühne und dem Zuschauer zu erschaffen, damit man objektiv den Mangel an Gerechtigkeit sehen kann. Beispielsweise wenn alle der im Güllen lebenden Bürger gelbe Schuhe tragen, oder im letzten Akt als die Bühne etwas ähnlich wie ein Gerichtsaal aussieht, umzu zeigen, dass das Leben des Alfreds wirklich auf Probe ist. Das Thema von der Gerechtigkeit wird durch die Theaterauffassung von Brecht dargestellt, und das ist nur ein Grund, warum die Problematik der Gerechtigkeit in diesem Fall faszinierend ist.

                Das Problem der Gerechtigkeit mit den Teilproblemen Schuld und Rache ist ein Schwerpunkt des Dramas. Im ersten Akt gelangt die Klara als Milliardärin zu der Einsicht, man könne sich mit genügend Geld alles kaufen, bzw. die Gerechtigkeit. Ich will Jura an der Uni studieren, deswegen lege ich groβen Wert auf das Prinzip, dass es eine Gleichheit der Gerechtigkeit gibt, egal ob man reich oder arm ist. Aber in diesem Fall ist es der Klara gelungen, die Vergeltung von dem zum Tode verurteilten Alfred durch seinen Tod zu bekommen. Wie es kurz gesagt wird, „Gerechtigkeit für eine Milliarde“. Hier geht es um die Frage, was meint die Klara, als sie „Gerechtigkeit“ sagt? Wird der Tod des Alfreds ein gerechtes Mittel, indem die Klara endlich ihre Vergeltung von ihrem Fehlurteil bekommen kann? Meines Erachtens ist das Leben für die Milliarde nicht nur die Vergeltung der Klara, sondern auch wie Güllen sich in ihrem schäbigen Bordell ändert, demzufolge wie Klara ihre Macht erweitert. Denn durch das Problem der Gerechtigkeit rief diese Debatte hervor, ist meine Neugier geweckt worden.

                Danach musste ich über die Unterschied zwischen der Gerechtigkeit und der Rache nachdenken, um zur Schlussfolgerung zu kommen, ob die Klara durch ihr Geld versucht, Gerechtigkeit zu bekommen, oder sich zu rächen. Obgleich es eine Vielfalt von Ansichten darüber gibt, kam ich zum Schluss, dass Klara den Begriff von Gerechtigkeit als Vorwand benutzt, und fordert einen Mord aus Rache. Der Mord ist eine halb irrsinnige Tat einer enttäuschten Frau aus übermäβiger Liebe, und diese unbequeme Liebe ist durch den Verfremdungseffekt dargestellt worden, als die beiden in dem Konradsweilerwald saβ: Indem Klara für ihre Rache den Begriff wählt, ermöglicht dadurch den Güllenern, ihr unrechtes Verhalten gegenüber Ill ebenfalls für gerecht zu halten. Das im Güllen wohnenden Kollektiv wird ein Mikrokosmos der zeitgemäβigen Gesellschaft. Dürrenmatt hatte die Absicht, seine Zuschauer zu beunruhigen. Sie müssten durch das auf der Bühne gezeigte Geschehen herausgefordert werden, über ihr eigenes Verhalten nachzudenken. Ich war keine Ausnahme davon. Als ich das Stück gelesen habe, habe ich gedacht, wenn ich eine Menge Geld hätte, würde ich versuchen, mich zu rächen? Auβerdem dachte ich, hätte ich während des Wirtschaftwunders gelebt, hätte ich jemand getötet, um eine Milliarde zu bekommen? Die Geschichte von Dürrenmatt und dem Stück wegen des Wirtschaftwunders war ganz wichtig, indem man fühlte, Geld sei das Wichtigstem und alles sei damit machbar. Deshalb habe ich Zweifel, ob mein moralischer Glauben durch die Geldgier ersetzt würde.

                Wenn es von dem Standpunkt des Alfreds gesehen wird, sieht die Gerechtigkeit etwas anders aus; sein eigenes Schicksal. Der antike und klassische Sinn von Tragödie gestattet den Zusammenstoβ letzter Werte, den Konflikt zwischen Freiheit und Notwendigkeit, zwischen dem autonom gesetzten Willen des wertvollen Einzelnen und dem Schicksal. Der Alfred bewältigt die Vergangenheit, und als Ergebnis davon spielt er die Rolle des griechischen Opfers, dessen Schicksal unvermeidbar ist. Er sagte zum Bürgermeister „Ich unterwerfe mich eurem Urteil, wie es nun auch ausfalle. Für mich ist es die Gerechtigkeit.“ Ich wäre eher geneigt gewesen, mit Alfreds Aussage zu zustimmen, wenn sein Tod nur aus dem damaligen Fehlurteil ging. Aber in diesem Fall geht es um viel anders, dass Klara die Rolle der Schicksalsgöttin spielt, um ihre Machtgier durch Rache zu sättigen. Wie der Lehrer sagte: Mann dürfe die Tat nur begehen, wenn es nicht um materielle Werte, sondern allein um die Verwirklichung von Gerechtigkeit gehe. Aber in der Lage der Klara geht es nicht nur um „materielle Werte“, sondern auch Macht durch immaterielle Kontrolle der Güllener. Deshalb war das Thema der Gerechtigkeit wirklich facettenreich, weil es immer anders von dem verschiedenen Standpunkten der Figuren aussieht. Während Alfred glaubt, dass die Gerechtigkeit sein Tod ist, denn es ist sein wegen damaligen Handlungen verdientes Schicksal, wenn es von dem Standpunkt der Güllener gesehen wird, wird der Mord als Verwirklichung der Ideale und der Gerechtigkeit umgedeutet.

                Als Schlussfolgerung muss ich zugeben, dass es nie einem solchen Stück gelungen ist, solche tiefen Debatten aufzubringen. Hätte ich nicht diese Stück gelesen, wäre mein Kenntniss und Verständnis von dem Konzept der Gerechtigkeit immer noch begrenzt und simplistisch gewesen. Es war ein solcher Genuss, sowohl die Unterschiede zwischen der Rache und der Gerechtigkeit gegen dem Hintergrund des Wirtschaftwunders zu untersuchen, als auch die Theaterauffassung Dürrenmatts mit Brecht zu vergleichen. Obwohl im Gegensatz zu Brecht Dürrenmatt allerdings auf einen ideologische Überbau verzichtete, und war der Meinung, dass er als Schriftsteller die Welt nicht verändern könne, bin ich immer noch der Ansicht, dass es wichtig war, die Zuschauer herauszufordern, über ihr eigenes Verhalten nachzudenken.

Explore the presentation of women in AMND

This was written before my class investigated the different metres in verse for Titania, which I would add now. But otherwise, this earned a Band 6.

Explore the presentation of women in Acts 1 and 2 in light of the following statement

Gervinus, Shakespeare Commentaries (1887), suggests that the humour in in Shakespeare’s comedies stems from the playwright’s focus on female characters:

‘All have more or less something of unwomanly forwardness in their nature, something of domineering superiority; and therefore the men in contact with them play more or less a subordinate part.’

            In Shakespeare’s comedy play, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, one can conclude that there are four important female characters, each tied to their own respective interwoven plotline. Within the main narrative of Athens, which represents the “City World” of the play, is Hippolyta, the fiancée of Theseus, whom is presented with ambiguity as to whether her marriage to Theseus is through willingness or forced submission. There are the female counterparts of the Athenian lovers: Hermia and Helena. Hermia is caught in the serious conflict of the play, being forced to decide whether to obey her father and marry her chosen suitor, Demetrius, or to defy her father’s wishes in loving Lysander and face life in a convent, or death, by requirement of Athenian law. Helena, however, is the victim of unrequited love as she is portrayed as dog-like in her pursuance of Demetrius, though this initial portrayal is later subverted as Lysander falls prey to the supernatural interference of the fairies, while Helena demonstrates defiance towards his unbecoming advances. And finally, there is Titania: the queen of the fairies, and of what critic Northrop Frye refers to as the “Green World”, where social disorder is all-consuming. While she is expected to submit to her husband Oberon, she shows “unwomanly forwardness” in her refusal to meet Oberon’s expectations. Such expectations were typical of the society of Elizabethan times, when women were expected to run the household and bear children. As Scottish Protestant leader John Knox said: “Women in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man.” To an extent, all of the women explored in A Midsummer Night’s Dream defy such a statement, apart from Helena.

            With regards to Hippolyta, the warrior and queen of the Amazons, there are two interpretations that may be drawn concerning her marriage to Theseus, which is described by Theseus as, “Hippolyta, I wooed thee with my sword,/And won thy love doing thee injuries.” Either Hippolyta felt attracted to him through his military skills and superiority, this being reflected through the romantic verb “wooed”, or she was forced to submit to him and become his trophy from the war, suggested through the use of the verb “won”, which indicates possession. Critic Schanzer takes the former interpretation, noting, “in the relationship of Theseus and Hippolyta reason and love have been made friends and keep company together.” This is shown through Hippolyta’s only dialogue in the scene, in which she expresses feelings of content and serenity when she says, “And then the moon, like to a silver bow/New bent in heaven, shall behold the night/Of our solemnities.” This tone of contentment is created through reference to the moon, which represents Diana, the Roman goddess of fertility. However, Diana was also the Roman goddess of the hunt, which coincides with Hippolyta’s portrayal as a warrior, as well as a “silver bow”, which can be reference to a weapon. Therefore Hippolyta’s dialogue in this case may not be an expression of contentment, but rather of “unwomanly forwardness” that masquerades as passivity. She is later described by Titania as, “But that, forsooth, the bouncing Amazon,/Your buskined mistress and your warrior love,” with the adjective “buskined” meaning high-booted, and this description evokes an empowering image of her warrior heritage. This coincides with the character of Hippolyta from Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Knight’s Tale”, a work Shakespeare was greatly influenced by. In this work, Hippolyta is described as, “…The queen named Hippolyta, whom he [Theseus] carried/Back home with him amid much pageantry”, which also indicates Theseus’ possession of Hippolyta, as opposed to a mutuality of attraction. Therefore, the character of Hippolyta is ambiguously presented concerning her marriage to Theseus. But due to the position of Elizabethan women in society when they were expected to bring a dowry to a marriage, Hippolyta has no choice either way.

            Certain similarities may be linked between the characters of Hippolyta, and the daughter of Egeus, Hermia. Potentially like Hippolyta, Hermia is forced against her will to marry her chosen husband, Demetrius, for whom she harbours no affections. She too is treated as a possession, which is highlighted through Egeus’ language when addressing his daughter, “And she is mine, and all my right to her/I do estate unto Demetrius”, this indication of possession represented through the possessive pronouns of “mine” and “my”. This enforces the ideas of women being viewed as nothing more than a transaction when it came to marriage, which was typical of Elizabethan society. Yet, unlike Hippolyta, Hermia demonstrates active defiance against her father’s wishes, despite later recognising her actions as unbecoming, “I know not by what power I am made bold”. As critic Bamber notes, such defiance is perceived as “a rebellion of the feminine against the power of masculine authority,” this “male authority” being both the parental authority of Egeus, and the patriarchal social authority of Theseus. This conflict in the main narrative of the play provides the context of Elizabethan times in regards to the role of women in becoming, “…a hyperbolic image of Elizabethan social facts: daughters of marriage age risked disaster as the only alternative to remaining single or coming to terms with their parents…”, as critic Harbage notes. This “disaster” that Harbage refers to in the case of Hermia is the choice of becoming a nun, or death, as inscribed under Athenian law. In Act Two, despite having escaped Athens, though it is dubious as to whether they have escaped the reaches of Athenian law, Hermia continues to stick to her morals and etiquette when she refuses to “lie with” Lysander. Despite his persistence, she remains true to her own principles when she tells him, “But, gentle friend, for love and courtesy/Lie further off, in human modesty;” and this forwardness prevails as he accepts her conditions. This may be interpreted as a “domineering superiority” for it is her wishes that are respected, but throughout the first two acts she maintains humility, so not to act unbecomingly from the behaviour expected of a woman in Elizabethan times.

            In contrast to Hermia, who holds on to her social codes of propriety, Helena relinquishes any sense of self-modesty in pursuit of Demetrius. In Act 1 Helena’s dialogue is written by Shakespeare in rhyming couplets to indicate that the play is a comedy, therefore what can be perceived as being serious, such as her soliloquy at the end of Act 1 Scene 2, must not be taken seriously, but comically. She laments the subjective nature of love, saying, “Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind,/And therefore is winged Cupid painted blind.” Reference to sight through the adjective “blind” has been cited by critic Panofsky as showing that “the classical sighted Cupid symbolised divine love, while the blind or blindfolded Cupid symbolised the moral dangers of earthly and illicit sensuality.” Yet despite the earnest nature in her monologue questioning the nature of love, there remains a comical irony to this in that Helena herself is pursuing an unhappy and dysfunctional love, the comedy of the situation highlighted through the contrived rhyming couplet structure between “mind” and “blind”. Helena may demonstrate an “unwomanly forwardness” in pursuit of Demetrius, this only contributes to her derogatory presentation as a dog, something Helena herself acknowledges when she tells Demetrius, “I am your spaniel, and, Demetrius,/The more you beat me I will fawn on you.”; this specific example of dialogue introducing a violent aspect to their relationship through the verb “beat”, which only results in further devotion towards him. This suggests a submissive and lesser role Helena has to play in her relationship with Demetrius, while he is masculated and physically asserts his dominance in a hypothetical scenario. As opposed to speaking in rhyming couplets, this section of Act Two Scene One is spoken in blank verse to assert their distance from the faeries as they enter the forest. However, in Act Two Scene Two the dog and the pursued dynamic is gender-reversed, with Lysander (under the spell of the love potion) pursues Helena, much to her disgust. “Yet Hermia still loves you; then be content/” she objects, to which Lysander completes the rhyming couplet structure by responding with, “Content with Hermia? No I do repent”. The structure of the rhyming couplet in this context is utilised by Shakespeare to indicate the artificial nature of Lysander’s love for Helena, which the audience knows is the product of the love potion. In contradiction to the Helena prior to this scene, Lysander’s advances are met with utter defiance as she reprimands him, “Good troth, you do me wrong – good sooth, you do -/In such disdainful manner me to woo.” This example of “domineering superiority” certainly fulfils the argument put forward by Gervinus as Lysander is forced into playing the pest in a “subordinate part”.

            Finally, the fourth main female role in the play is Titania, the queen of the faeries. Unlike the male-female relationships in the City World of Athens, in the “Green World”, a literary concept created by Northrop Frye in which social disorder reigns, Titania is placed equal to, if not higher than her male counterpart Oberon. This is demonstrated in the stage directions of their first entrance, “Enter Oberon at one door, with his train, and Titania with hers.” There is no indication of one entering before the other, which places them on equal footing. In Act Two Scene One, their argument is written in blank verse with monosyllabic words to lend their dialogue a harsh quality, which presents Titania as defiant, rather than the typical saccharine female character. When asked by Oberon, “Am not I thy Lord?”, she refuses the notion of the husband and wife relationship being one of domination and submission in her reply, “Then I must be thy lady; but I know…”. Her final line of the scene is written as a rhyming couplet, “Not for thy fairy kingdom.-Fairies, away./We shall chide downright if I longer stay…” before exiting the scene, signalling that she has won the argument by not allowing Oberon to respond in her presence. Unlike in the City World, in the Green World the women are able to assert dominance over the men, as social order has been disrupted, once again aligning Titania with the description Gervinus provides. But it is not just the female-male relationship that is significant in this context, but the female to female relationship Titania has with the mother of the fledgling boy in her care, because, as Titania says herself, “And for her sake do I rear up her boy;/And for her sake I will not part with him.” The monosyllabic language in this example asserts her adamancy in a poignant manner, telling the audience that she argues with Oberon not merely for the sake of securing herself power in her relationship, but because of the strength in her female bond with the Indian boy’s mother, thus suggesting that the female relationships triumph over male tyranny.

            In conclusion, to an extent all four central female characters do express “unwomanly forwardness”, as Gervinus prescribes to them. While Hermia’s defiance against her father is a rebellion against principles he wishes to uphold, she is also assertive towards Lysander for the sake of upholding her own moral principles of abstinence, though throughout such examples of female defiance, she is aware, if not regretful, that this is unbecoming of the expectations of her behaviour. Helena, by contrast is not afraid to demonstrate her forwardness in pursuit of Demetrius, but this creates a derogatory presentation of her as opposed to an empowering one. However, when confronted by such behaviour, this time from Lysander, she is not afraid to reprimand his actions, though this is because she wishes to remain faithful to Demetrius, which continues her pathetic want to be acknowledged romantically by Demetrius. With regards to Hippolyta, her warrior heritage is at odds with her demonstrated passivity, and it remains ambiguous as to whether her engagement to Theseus is consensual or forced. But Shakespeare’s use of possessive pronouns indicates the notion that Hippolyta is treated as a trophy of war, rather than Theseus’ loving betrothed, and because she does not voice a dissatisfaction of this, one cannot determine any “dominating superiority” from her, as Theseus is comfortably in control. And finally, in complete contrast to Hippolyta, Titania does demonstrate superiority over Oberon by winning the argument between them, because the setting of the Green World allows her to do so outside of the social confines of the City World. But the reason for her defiance is not a malevolent one, rather it is because of her commitment to a fellow female, and the power of the relationship between them is able to surpass that of her own marriage. This is a direct contrast to the female relationship between Hermia and Helena, which Helena is prepared to sacrifice for the sake of gaining Demetrius’ approval. But despite this, these female characters all express superiority and defiance to their male counterparts, but all to varying extents.

Explore the Presentation of Bottom in AMND

This essay received full marks an explores the presentation of the character of Bottom.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a dramatic comedy by English playwright William Shakespeare, in which four plot lines are interwoven into the main narrative of the play. One of these belongs to Shakespeare’s “mechanicals”, a group of amateur actors given the task to perform their own play for Duke Theseus’ wedding celebrations. One of them is Nick Bottom, whose primary occupation is as a manual labourer, specifically a weaver, and therefore working-class. However, as he leaves the “Urban World” of Athens, and enters the forest, which is likened to Northrop Frye’s literary concept of the “Green World”, he undergoes a supernatural transformation, thanks to the mischief of Robin Goodfellow, before lying with the Fairy Queen Titania. The themes of the supernatural and transformation are embodied through his character, and thus he plays a significant role. Furthermore, many critics have argued that he also fulfils the role of the “Shakespearean fool”, whom is not who he is perceived to be, despite literally becoming the butt of the play’s biggest joke.

                As a member of the mechanicals, Bottom is important in that the mechanicals introduce the play within a play structure of A Midsummer Night’s Dream by performing their own play, “The Most Lamentable Comedy and Most Cruel Death of Pyramus and Thisbe”. Within the play’s contradictory title “Lamentable Comedy”, Shakespeare clarifies to his audience that despite the tragic undertones of his own play, it is to be treated as a comedy. This is embodied through the bawdy humour of the mechanicals, accompanied by their unrefined dialogue. When Bottom refers to a “French crown-colour beard”, this is a reference to baldness, which at the time was identified as a symptom of the venereal disease syphilis. Furthermore, Shakespeare writes the mechanicals’ dialogue in prose, as opposed to blank verse or in rhyming couplets like the Athenians, to provide a direct contrast from the etiquette of high society in Athens, therefore confirming their working-class position. In Elizabethan times, this would have meant members of the audience could personally identify with this specific social group portrayed, and while some critics claim Shakespeare patronisingly links the working class to bawdy humour, critic Allen argues that later in his encounter with Titania, Bottom “remains courteous and complacent, and further demonstrates matter-of-factness”, thus demonstrating it is wrong to classify Bottom as the stock oaf character.

                Rather, Bottom satisfies the role of the Shakespearean fool, a role fulfilled in Shakespeare’s other works such as the fool in King Lear, or Touchstone in As You Like It. In the latter’s case, while Touchstone is at first characterised as a fool, he also makes perceptive comments about foolishness, such as:

                The more pity, that fools may not speak wisely what

                Wise men do foolishly.

With regards to Bottom, when the audience is first introduced to him, he does appear to be the fool who has displaced confidence in himself when he claims he could play all of the roles including Thisbe, in a “monstrous little voice”; the contradictory nature of this statement highlights his idiocy. This has been interpreted as a contemporary representation regarding Shakespeare’s own relationship with amateur theatre companies, and the transition of his works from script to stage. However, in undergoing his own physical transformation from human to ass and venturing into the Green World, Bottom begins to make perceptive comments, specifically when he links the central themes of love and reason in saying:

                “And yet, to say the truth, reason and love keep little company together nowadays…”

Despite his language gaining further eloquence in Act IV Scene I with the addition of French through the repetition of “good monsieur”, Bottom does not speak in full verse, which Shakespeare uses to suggest to the audience that Bottom’s transformation is only temporary, and that he will revert back to being the overtly-confident fool of the mechanicals. This is confirmed when the production of Pyramus and Thisbe takes place, and Bottom proceeds to make grammatical errors for the length of the performance, referring to “Ninny’s tomb” as opposed to “Ninus”. Through such grammatical errors, Shakespeare conveys his frustrations concerning the tendencies of amateur theatre companies to focus their attention towards the bigger aspects of productions, rather than correcting smaller, but necessary details that the success of the play depends on. This is demonstrated in the male audience’s response, in that they are not fully immersed in the world of Pyramus and Thisbe, specifically when Demetrius replies to Theseus:

                “No wonder, my lord: one lion may when many asses do.”

By contrast of the actual audience of A Midsummer Night’s Dream and their total immersion into Shakespeare’s play, the male audience of Pyramus and Thisbe is indifferent to what is set before them, as Shakespeare wishes to demonstrate how the melodrama and grammatical errors lead to the failure of the play in its ability to encapsulate the audience.

                However while Bottom’s physical transformation may be perceived as having comical effect, it embodies the overarching theme of transformation, both physically and spiritually. The significance of transformation in A Midsummer Night’s Dream derives from Ovid’s Metamorphoses, a powerful source of Shakespeare’s inspiration, a collection of poems in which humans and Gods are transformed into forces of nature. Despite literally becoming the butt of the play’s joke in becoming an “ass”, Bottom also transforms, in that he transcends social class structures by lying with Titania when entering the Green World. Even nowadays, a working-class man having a sexual relationship with royalty would be unheard of, let alone in Elizabethan times when class systems were more prominent. Bottom acknowledges this fact in his surprise of Titania’s artificial attraction, after she tells him:

                And thy fair virtue’s force perforce doth move me

                On the first view to say, to swear, I love thee.

Because Titania’s language is written in rhyming couplets, it adds a supernatural, if not contrived nature to their dialogue, which Shakespeare uses to demonstrate the artificiality of her attraction to Bottom, making his bewilderment to this justified.

                Methinks, mistress, you should have little reason for that.

Furthermore, the transgressive nature of Titania and Bottom’s relationship is heightened by Bottom’s upper transformation, thereby the relationship borders on bestiality. This is shown when Robin tells Oberon:

                My mistress with a monster is in love,

                The reference to “monster” indicates that the relationship is wrong. The notion of negative transformation is cited by critic Nostbakken as having three sources, “mythological story, witchcraft and the overactive imagination.” While in Elizabethan times, these sources focus on the power of women to govern the physical experience of men, thus suggesting an anxiety about contemporary gendered roles, the source of Bottom’s negative transformation, or even blatant deformity, is the male fairies Puck and Oberon, and his relationship with Titania, thus demonstrating how in an all’s well that ends well play, the restoration of order and harmony relies on a male hierarchy.

                Therefore Bottom’s character is presented as a contrast between idiocy in the Urban World, to eloquence and great perception in the realm of the fairies. He may be overtly confident in his enthusiasm to play every character in the mechanicals’ production, which Shakespeare uses to deliver his own frustrations of amateur theatre companies and their adaptations of his works. However, as a “weaver” between the Urban and Green Worlds, Bottom is a unique character in his ability to fully immerse himself in his transcendence of humanity by interacting with Titania and her servants, and in doing so transcends the social codes of Elizabethan society regarding class structure. Thus, characterising Bottom as the stock character fool is unjust, as he is presented multifaceted, although his performance as Pyramus does him no justice.

De-Stalinsation: Successes and Failures

If you haven’t already, before reading this section I would recommend looking at Khrushchev’s motives for de-Stalinisation, which you can find here

Now we’re going to evaluate the success or failure of Khrushchev’s de-Stalinist policies:

1. Did they successfully de-Stalinise the USSR?

2. Were they economically successful?

There was once a 2-in-1 question that asked candidates to answer both of these questions in the same essay, which was very nasty to tackle, but should it come up again then this section is essentially an essay plan for it.

De-Stalinisation took the following forms:

-          Within a year, labour camps were opened and millions of prisoners were set free

-          Five years later, Stalin’s name was removed from the Russian map

·         Stalingrad was renamed Volgograd

-          The 22^nd Congress decided to remove Stalin’s body from the Lenin mausoleum

-          De-Stalinisation resulted in a failed attempt to remove Khrushchev from power in 1957.

·         The party voted 7:4 for his dismissal from the role of Party Secretary.

·         Khrushchev was able to overcome this through using his position to consolidate a power base

A Time of New Freedom?

“The Thaw” was the name given to the relaxation in artistic and cultural life under Khrushchev.

-          For example, in 1959 a new history of the Party was approved, criticising the excesses of the 1930s

-          The composer Shostakovitch’s work was allowed to be performed

-          Books by Western authors like Ernest Hemingway appeared in Russian bookshops

-          Cultural and sporting exchanges were arranged with capitalist countries

·         E.g. football teams like Dinamo Moscow became popular in Europe

HOWEVER, there were limits to this freedom

-          Boris Pasternak was heavily criticised for his novel “Doctor Zhivago” and had to refuse his Nobel Prize for Literature

·         Khrushchev thought it was too critical of the Bolsheviks in the Revolution and the Civil War

·         Other writers met a similar fate, e.g. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

-          Khrushchev didn’t ease pressure on religious groups

·         Orthodox Churches were destroyed in large numbers -> only 7500/20,000 remained as places of worship.

·         Muslim and Jewish places of worship met the same fate

Relations with the Satellite States

The Hungarian Crisis 1956 ­- the most important example!

When anti-Soviet demonstrations broke out in Budapest and the leader Imre Nagy announced his intention to leave the Warsaw Pact, Khrushchev sent in Soviet and Warsaw Pact tanks into Hungary.

-          Why??? -> The Warsaw Pact was an agreement signed in 1955, in which all the Iron Curtain countries committed themselves to the collective defence of Soviet Europe against “Western Imperialism”

·         Therefore, Khrushchev feared if Hungary withdrew, the other satellite states would follow suit

-          Over 20,000 Hungarians were killed, and Khrushchev’s reputation was badly damaged

Yugoslavia

Khrushchev visited their leader Tito in 1955 and 1956, and the bestowal of Soviet favour strengthened the idea that, with Stalin gone, the Kremlin had accepted Yugoslavia’s right to develop its own Communism.

Poland

As strong demands were being made for Poland to be left free to develop its own socialism, Khrushchev compromised and allowed popular Polish patriot Gomulka to return to political prominence, as long as he renewed his commitment to the Warsaw Pact.

East Germany

In November 1958, Khrushchev publicly challenged the rights of the Western Powers to remain in Berlin, and demanded that within six months, West Berlin should become a demilitarised, free city.

-          In June 1961, he threatened Kennedy by saying the West must be ready to leave Berlin within six months

·         This increased the flight of people from East to West Berlin and led to the construction of the Berlin Wall

·         The 28-mile long Berlin Wall symbolised Communist tyranny

·         But in some ways it was a success. It restored greater stability, stopped the loss of essential manpower, and meant the economic collapse of East Germany could be avoided.

International attention was distracted by the Suez Crisis caused by the Anglo-French decision to intervene in Egypt when President Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal Company.

Agriculture

The issues with agriculture following Stalin were:

-          There were fewer animals in the USSR before the Revolution

-          Farmer’s income was too low from state procurement prices

-          Productivity was very low and farmers were taxed too highly

-          The Party had been misled by the idea of “biological yields”

Khrushchev’s remedies to these were the following:

-          A rise of 25% in the price of grain procurements 1953-1956

-          Costs to collective farms were cut

·         E.g. the cost of transport and the hire of equipment

·         This pricing system did little to encourage farmers to grow what was necessary – the state offered prices often less than the cost of production

-          Peasant taxation was reorganised so it was paid on the size of the plot rather than fruit trees and livestock

-          Peasants without livestock weren’t expected to provide meat

·         Shortages caused the government to raise the prices of meat and dairy -> in Novocherkassk there were protests, when troops fired on rioters and killed 24.

-          Collective farms were allowed to set their own targets and were given more freedom to decide how to use their land

-          The MTS were abolished and repair stations were set up instead, for whose services collective farms had to pay

·         This meant there were no barns on farms to store equipment or the expertise to maintain them.

·         Mechanics from former MTS tended to return to industry

·         Farm machinery rotted in the fields for want of small parts

The Virgin Land Scheme

-          This was introduced to cultivate the 90 million acres of unfarmed land in western Siberia and northern Kazakhstan

-          It showed early signs of success in 1954 and 1956  (1955 was a drought year)

·         The 1956 grain harvest totalled 50% of total USSR grain production

·         By 1956 an extra 35.9 million hectares were cultivated = total cultivated area of Canada

·         Around 500,000 volunteers were recruited

·         In the first year of the scheme, 6 million acres were freshly ploughed

·         12,000 tractors were provided

-          However, despite initial success, after 1956 the scheme became a total failure

·         Erosion by wind proved to be a difficult problem – 13,000 square miles had their topsoil removed by 1960 alone

·         After the poor harvest of 1963, Khrushchev suffered the humiliation of having to import grain from the capitalist West

·         Khrushchev advised farmers to grow more maize -> 85 million acres were planted, only 1/6 was harvest ripe, a colossal waste of manpower and land because it wasn’t suited to the climate

Therefore, it is safe to say that Khrushchev’s agricultural policy, although de-Stalinist in that it actually prioritised agriculture, was largely a failure. The Virgin Lands Scheme became an example of Khrushchev’s “hare-brained scheming”, which was only accentuated by the fact Khrushchev had referred to himself as an “agricultural expert”, which obviously turned out not to be the case!

Industry

In 1959 the Party launched a Seven Year Plan with more realistic targets than the Five Year Plans of the 1930s

-          This had a heavy emphasis on power stations and consumer goods.

-          Statistics suggest it was a great success:

·         Coal increased from 391million tons in 1955 to 578 million tons in 1965

·         Tractor production increased from 314,000 in 1955 to 804,000 in 1965

·         TV set production increased from 495,000 in 1955 to 3,655,000 n 1965

In industry, Khrushchev differed very little from Stalin, focusing on meeting targets as opposed to ensuring quality.

He made some reforms in the organisation of industry:

-          105 regional councils (sovnarkozy) took the place of national ministries in decentralisation

·         This moved away from central planning of the Stalinist system

·         Was resented by some within the Party

·         It added another layer of bureaucracy: Filtzer called it “bureaucratic anarchy”

·         Furthermore a Supreme Economic Council was set up in Moscow

-          To prove the USSR could equal the West, Khrushchev invested a huge amount of resources into the Space Race, resulting in the USSR landing a Red Flag on the moon in 1959

·         Oct 1957 – launch of the first artificial satellite (Sputnik)

·         1959 – Luna I’s exploratory mission to the moon

·         1961 – Venera I explored Venus

·         April 1961 – Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space in Vostok I

-          New emphasis was placed on technology and science

·         German technicians were forcible recruited

·         By 1965 – the USSR possessed over 4700 scientific establishments and employed more scientists than in any other country

The standard of living did improve:

-          A minimum wage was introduced in 1956, although most workers earned more

-          The average household income rose by 3% per year between 1960-65

-          The diet of the Russian people improved and became less dependent on bread and potatoes

-          Books and public transport became cheaper in the West, although items like clothes and footwear were expensive

-          By 1964 - only 5 in 1000 Soviets had a car, only 82 in 1000 had a television and only 40 in 1000 owned a refridgerator

-          The substantial increase in housing meant young married couples could find a place of their own

-          Diesel trains were added to Russian railways, but few families had cars

And that’s de-Stalinisation covered! Next we’ll be looking at the reasons for Khrushchev’s fall from power, but that’s another section. For now, try to reach your own judgements based on each section, and then we’ll link them to his ousting.