The Wizard of Oz as a Fairy Tale Essay Example for Free

The Wizard of Oz as a Fairy Tale Essay For hundreds of years, parents have been enthralling children with stories of magic and wishes coming true. Fairy tales are passed from one generation to the next through oral tradition, and, in modern times, books. As various societies develop, fairy tales are changed to fit the needs and morals those societies want to impress upon their children. Thus, the style and content of a fairy tale is directly affected by the social attitudes of a particular society at a particular time. Jack Zipes adopts and assumes the magical folktale is the oral version and the fairytale the literary version of a tale when he describes the rise of â€Å"the fairytale in the Western world as the mass-mediated cultural form of the folktale† (Zipes 15). Fairy tales include common themes, motifs, story lines, and characters that aid in the protagonist’s working towards a common goal. In the first chapter of his book, Swiss scholar Max Luthi identifies fourteen characteristics that are vital to the unique classification of a fairy tales as demarcated from other forms of children’s literture. With the help of these distinctive structural and stylistic features, Frank L. Baum’s novel, â€Å"The Wizard of Oz† can be classified within the boundaries of the fairy tale. â€Å"The Wizard of Oz,† like so many fairy tales, naturally has cultural, social, and political undertones interwoven within the text. Virtually all of Baum’s characters and magical land pertain to specific cultural or socio-political event of the time. Contemporary social issues are unconsciously rolled into the fabric of the story like: the yellow brick road and the silver slippers that both symbolize the influence of the gold and silver debate prominent in Baum’s time. Baum lifts phrases almost directly from Grimm. In â€Å"The Wizard of Oz†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬Å"she wished the girl to remain with her to do the cooking and cleaning† (Baum 27) is similar to the witches request if Gretel in â€Å"Hansel and Gretel† when she says, â€Å"I want you to fetch some water and cook your brother something nice† (Grimm 53). Dorothy also states to the Scarecrow, â€Å"If you come with me Ill ask Oz to do all he can for you†(Baum 22). Which is reminiscent to the donkey’s words in the Grimms’ â€Å"The Bremen Town Musicians† (Grimm 96)†¦The basic plot of this tale is similar to â€Å"The Wizard of Oz† in that a group of helpers accompany a hero and use their specific skills to achieve a quest. Baum does not forget to include several classic airytale motifs: seven league boots are replaced with silver slippers that take the wearer any place his or her hearts desires and the classic object used three times to summon a helper is represented by the golden cap that is used to call upon the winged monkeys three times. The motifs appearance in this story demonstrates how often similar motifs are re-used in an altered states across various types of literature. The witch threatens the heroes with forty bees, forty wolves and forty crows. Though forty may not be the most commo n number used to highlight the unique fairy tale repetition of numbers, this number of course holds meaning. In the Bible there were forty days of flood, forty days of fasting and forty days of wandering. In fact the very nature of â€Å"The Wizard of Oz’s† medium, the novel, increase the differentiation between it and fairy tales. Oz is too long a work for it to be easily recognizable as a fairy tale. Most tales do not describe locations, physical features, or emotional states. Heroes are rarely afraid of foreign creatures, they just kill them or die trying, it is simply a part of their nature as heros. Luthi (Visual Aspect non-deliniation of character p. 25) Within the first few pages Baum informs the reader of the what Dorothy is wearing, a checked gingham dress, and that she â€Å"cries sorrowfully when the wizard wont see her† (Baum 60). The story’s descriptive passages concerning the physical environment mainly relate to the colors that are present (what is visible), especially in the description of the forest †¦ Psychoanalysis has classified and links fairy tales to childhood sexuality. They serve a psychological function by representing to children their subconscious sexual urges and conflicts. Bruno Bettelheim uses his â€Å"The Uses of Enchantment† to discuss the manifestation of these drives in fairytales and how children use such literature to reconcile internal struggles they may be having. The Wizard of Oz provides internal resolution in preparation for something greater—sex. Sex, is of course skirted around rather than confronted head on. For example in chapter eight of the novel, â€Å"The deadly poppy field† sleep is used as a substitute for death. Dorothy never has to experience any real death, but wakes up surrounded by dead wolves she is only mildly frightened for a moment until the woodsman explains their presence euphemistically as being not dead, but â€Å"shaggy. † Oz approaches the deep levels of meaning discussed by Bettelheim and falls into the Freudian romance, like â€Å"Cinderella† who escapes her psychologically unsatisfactory step family to achieve a better life. Dorothy, though she returns to her home in Kansa, manages to move towards maturity and self-realization. As Dorothy realizes the power of the magic slippers and the other characters find what they were looking for but had all along, the reader gets the message that what we need for â€Å"wholeness† is within, not without. Different from the psychological approach of Bettelheim, Max Luthi worked to identify what makes a fairy tale a fairy tale. So although characters may seemingly act without logic, reason, or emotion and one incident may not connect with what occurs immediately before or after it, there is a rationale that permeates every tale. Dorothy is to some degree disconnected from reality. Aunt Em and Uncle Joe are rarely happy because reality has soured them but Dorothy who is not fully integrated with reality is able to go on a quest to discover her own happiness (Luthi: Supernatural #8 p25). Dorothy, as the heroine, is in tune with the underlying fairytale theme of†¦ (Luthi p25, 34 #5, 14). Dorothy seems to be unknowingly blessed. She is mistakenly revered as a sorceress; â€Å"The silver shoes fitted her as if they had been made for her† and she accidentally kills not one, but two wicked witches. The outward sign of her charm is the mark of the good witchs kiss. In some fairytales there is a similar physical indicator, it could be freckles, red headedness, extreme ugliness or a tuft of hair. Separate but related to chance is magic. What distinguishes the fairytale from other folk literature is the prescience of magic. What is fundamental is the existence of magic and the otherworldly. Often there is a stated crossing from the mundane to a magical realm. Once in the magical realm Baum utilizes stock motifs like talking animals, witches, wizards, the Simpleton figure, caps that can summon powerful creatures three times and shows that can travel infinite distances in a few strides. Help is the central motif of the folktale, it propels the narrative and defines the hero. In the folktale the hero would not achieve his objective without help, in particular the help of otherworld beings. And this support is lavished on him. Dorothy never asks for or thinks about magic gifts but when she needs them they are granted. Gifts are given to Dorothy without entreaty and do come into play when needed but, especially in the case of the slippers, she has to work for the privilege. Dorothy shows no extraordinary strength of character yet she is given the silver shoes and fatefully obtains the golden cap. Though one would assume the nature of the heroine determines her success and reflects her good character her quest is often solely for personal gain. Dorothy and her friends want whats best for them and by following their own course they inadvertently rescue other people without intending to do so. This in turn paves the way to their ultimate goal. The happy ending, as Bettelheim reiterates, is what makes the fairy tale stand out as childrens literature. Because fairy tales provide resolution and reassurance children can easily relate and learn from the tales (Bettelheim, 10). Dorothys goal is achieved not in Oz, because Oz is not the right place for her, but instead back at home where she can apply what she has gained to get her â€Å"happily ever after†. â€Å"The Wizard of Oz† corresponds to a large number of fairy tale characteristics, but it undoubtedly does not fit quite perfectly into the exact fairy tale mold. It doesnt fit entirely, partly because its just too big. The nature of its form, the novel, demands a greater level of descriptive information and plot explication, both which lead away from the traditional fairytales.

Dont Judge A Book By Its Cover Essay Example for Free

Dont Judge A Book By Its Cover Essay He may be looking corny by wearing bulky goggles or a lab coat, but Dr.Horrible isn’t what he seems. Dr.Horrible is, for one, determined. He has set a plan on how to get himself into The Evil League of Evil by assembling his Freeze-Ray and defeating his nemesis, Captain Hammer. But before he is able to assemble the Freeze-Ray, he has to steal the final â€Å"ingredient†, the Wonderflonium. Which leads me to Dr.Horrible’s second characteristic, jealous. After bumping into Captain Hammer having to save Penny’s life, both his nemesis and love falls in love, which is the reason why he has the characteristic of being jealous. The end is where Dr.Horrible receives his final characteristic, evil. He not only defeated Captain Hammer, but he has killed Penny. Because of these acts, he is finally accepted in The Evil League of Evil. Dr.Horrible may look corny, but he definitely lives up to his name, horrible.

Comparison of Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois

Comparison of Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois had contrasting views on how to deal with the problems facing American-Americans. Which was superior in dealing with these conflicts? Booker T. Washington and WEB Du Bois are perhaps the two most important and influential African-Americans of the late nineteenth century and they both played pivotal roles in the Civil Rights movement. However, as the question suggests, they also had very contrasting political beliefs when it came to impacting the African-American movement. To fully understand where the two leaders had similarities and contrasts in their political views, I will first study Washingtons contributions to the African-American cause, and the reasons behind his choices. Focus will then shift to Du Bois views and his main criticisms of Washington, and whether these criticisms were valid or not. To understand the methods and reactions of Washington and Du Bois it is first essential to understand the background they were functioning in. During the late nineteenth century, when Washington and Du Bois were at their peak, Reconstruction had failed and life for many African-Americans was considerably worse then it had been before the American Civil War and the abolishment of slavery. African-Americans found themselves in the worse paid jobs in both rural areas, where they were exploited by an unfair sharecropping system, and in more urban areas, where the industrial revolution was beginning to take hold. Segregation was also rapidly moving throughout American society being reinforced in 1896 by the Plessy vs. Fergusoncase where it was decided that segregation was constitutional under the argument that it was â€Å"separate but equal†. More worryingly, during this time the number of African-Americans falling victim to lynching was rapidly growing. Due to these worsening con ditions many African-American leaders of the time developed a tolerating attitude towards the obvious oppression there people were suffering, believing that outspoken protest would only make situations worse, and so instead they would appeal for aid from wealthy and influential whites and encourage African-Americans to â€Å"lift themselves by their bootstraps†[1]. When looking at the background context it becomes clear why Washington and Du Bois had differing views when it came to Civil Rights. Washington had been born a slave in the South and grew up poorly fed and clothed and was denied an education. Growing up in the South Washington would have had first hand experience with the sort of discrimination many African-Americans were faced with at the time and would have also understood the real fear many African-Americans had of lynching. With this in mind it can be seen why Washington would have been more cautious in his methods of progressing Civil Rights. Du Bois by contrast was born a freeman in the North and didnt suffer discrimination until he entered higher education, and so it is understandable why he would not have had the same reservations as Washington when it came to a more radical approach to dealing with the oppression of African-Americans. Washingtons work for the African-American race can be most clearly seen when looking at the Tuskegee Institution, which still exists today. The school opened in July 1881 and was at the outset only space rented from a local church, with only one teacher, that being Washington. The following year Washington was able to purchase a former plantation, which became the permanent site of the school, and the students themselves erected and fitted the buildings, as well as growing their own crops and rearing their own livestock. While the Tuskegee Institute did offer some academic training for teachers, its main focus was on providing practical skills needed to survive in rural areas, such as carpentry and modern agricultural techniques. It can be argued that this more vocational slant towards teaching was damaging in the progression of African-American rights, however Washington believed that to become socially equal to whites, African-Americans must first become economically equal and show that they are responsible American citizens, who had something to offer society. Also, it can be argued that the practical teaching of the Tuskegee Institute was far more beneficial for the time than academic teaching would have been. The Institute is also a good example of why perhaps Washington had some merit with his views of appeasement. Washington was able to use his friendship with powerful white men to help finance the school and even got ex-slave owners, such as George W. Campbell, to support the new school. Without this aid it is unlikely that the Tuskegee Institute would have ever evolved from a small rented room into the huge institution that it is today. While the Tuskegee Institute showcased Washingtons views on education the Atlanta Expedition Address illustrated what he supposedly believed African-Americans place in society should be. Washington delivered the address in 1895, and was designed to â€Å"cement the friendship of the races and bring about hearty cooperation between them† [2]. Washingtons main purpose with the Atlanta Address was to help achieve a realistic settlement between Southern Whites, Northern Whites and the African-American community in a time when race relations were only getting worse. Washington was no doubt anxious not to antagonise the white population who held African-Americans at their mercy, and so he â€Å"urged blacks to remain in the South, work at the ‘common occupations of life, and accept the fact of white supremacy† [3]. When addressing the white population in his speech Washington reassured them that African-Americans had no intention or interest in securing social equality, that all they required was economic cooperation, â€Å"In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress† [4]. The work Washington did for African-American crossed over into the twentieth century with the creation of the National Negro Business Leaguein 1900. The aim of the League was to help promote and further the commercial and financial development of African-American business [5], not only in the South but also the North of America. The creation of the League empathized Washingtons belief that to become socially equal to whites that African-Americans must first become economically equal. However it can be argued that the League held little importance when considering African-American business as it did little to assist, but that it allowed Washington to have a â€Å"stronghold† of men in every black population of importance [6]. Compared to Washington Du Bois political views can be seen as being quite radical for the social climate of the time. Du Bois probably had more radical views because of his different background, as he didnt have a history of slavery and did live in fear of lynching the way many African-Americans did at the time. However, Du Bois did share some similarities in thought with Washington, for example Du Bois also believed that African-Americans needed to help bring themselves out of social inequality. However, unlike Washington, Du Bois believed that African-Americans needed leadership from a college-educated elite and that simple vocational education wasnt enough to elevate the position of African-Americans in society, â€Å"Men we shall have only as we make manhood the object of the work of the schools intelligence, broad sympathy, knowledge of the world that was and is, and of the relation of men to it this is the curriculum of that Higher Education which must underlie true life.On this foundation we may build bread winning, skill of hand and quickness of brain, with never a fear lest the child and man mistake the means of living for the object of life†[7], Du Bois set out the ideas of an elite group of African-Americans teaching other African-Americans in his â€Å"The Talented Tenth† article, the idea being that there was one in ten African-Americans, the talented tenth, was capable of becoming an influential leader, who would lead other African-Americans to a better future. Du Bois had many criticism of Washington, many of which he set out in an essay in 1903 titled â€Å"Of Mr Booker T Washington and Others†. Du Bois felt that Washington focused too much on vocational education and that â€Å"his educational program was too narrow† [8]. This particular criticism no doubt evolved from Du Bois own education which was wide and varied, and his more privileged background which allowed him the luxury of exploring avenues of education that wouldnt directly lead to work. Du Bois also believed that Washingtons methods and arguments â€Å"practically accepts the alleged inferiority of the Negro races†[9]. This criticism is almost entirely valid as Washington himself stated that African-Americans should accept White Supremacy in his Atlanta Expedition Address, and while it is doubtful that Washington himself saw the African-American race as inferior, he did little to try and convince the general population otherwise. Washington urged African-Americans to earn security through economic means and technical skills, and he put little importance on higher education and political and social rights, believing that they would follow naturally from economic freedom. However Du Bois argued that this approach would lead to many African-Americans living below the poverty line, because he believed that it was impossible for most people to gain economic rights and freedoms when they were unequal socially. Du Bois also clashed with Washington due to their differing political ideologies. While Washington championed capitalist ideals, Du Bois, who became a leading Black Marxist, felt that any social freedoms gained by economic progress would make the African-American population into dishonest money makers [10]. Du Bois Marxist views came into play with other disparagements he had with Washington, most apparent in 1903 when Du Bois tried to prove Washington was using â€Å"hush money† to control the African-American press, to make sure his own views were the more favoured in print [11]. To some degree Du Bois criticisms of Washington were valid, as Washington did little to resolve the social issues that plagued the African-American race, so as not to seem controversial or threatening to the white population. However, when looking at the backgrounds of the two leaders it becomes obvious why they had such opposing views. Washington had been born a Slave in the South and so he would naturally be more cautious and reserved when dealing with the white population as he knew the damage that a majority population could cause to African-Americans. He matured in a time when the number of lynchings was ever growing, and so he would fully recognise and understand the fear most African-Americans lived with. Du Bois by contrast, was born a freeman in the North, which was far more liberal and accepting than the South and so he didnt have a proper grasp of the everyday problems and anxieties many African-Americans dealt with. It can also be argued that while Du Bois spent large amo unts of his time criticising Washington, he actually did nothing practical to forward the progress of African-Americans the way Washington did with the Tuskegee Institute. While Du Bois was Washingtons most vocal and famous opponent, he was far from the only challenger. A black president of Atlanta University, John Hope, was vocal of his disagreement with Washingtons Atlanta Address, stating in 1896 â€Å"I regard it as cowardly and dishonest for any of our coloured men to tell white people and coloured people that we are not struggling for equality. Now catch your breath, for I am going to say that we demand social equality† [12]. While this view was to be expected among Northern black leaders, Hope shattered the illusion that all African-Americans in the South were willing to simply accept their lowered social status. William Monroe Trotter, editor of the Boston Guardian, was another of Washingtons most unforgiving critics and claimed that â€Å"[Washington], whatever good he may do, has injured and is injuring the race more than he can aid it by his school. Let us hope that Booker Washington will remain mouth-closed at Tuskegee. If he will do this, all his former sins will be forgiven†[13]. Trotters views are to some degree far harsher than Du Bois were, but the general idea theme is the same, that Washington was not helping the African-American race by deemphasising the importance of social equality, and that he was in fact hindering to movement. Trotter also challenged Washington at a National Negro Business League meeting in Boston while Washington was giving a speech. Trotter posed a number of questions that challenged Washington and his views, before he was arrested. While Washington did not respond to the challenges, Trotter made his point and the incident was reported as â€Å"The Boston Riot† the next day in papers. As can be seen, Washington and Du Bois had to some degree very opposing views on how to handle and progress the African-American race. Washington put great empathise on vocational education that would give practical skills to African-Americans living in the South. Rather than focus on social and political equality, Washington stressed the importance of economic advancement, believing that once the average African-American had the power of wealth that political and social freedoms and powers would follow. Washington felt there was great importance in appeasing the white majority, for the economic and political power it affording him in furthering the African-American cause and because he lived in the turbulent South, where it was dangerous to be a radical black man. Du Bois political ideas contrasted with Washingtons idea of â€Å"appeasement† and he had a far more radical approach to Civil Rights. Du Bois didnt think that it was possible for African-Americans to achieve econom ic equality before they had achieved social and political equality. Du Bois more radical approach stems from his background, as he did not share the same fear as Washington and did not experience the same forms of racism. Bu Bois could afford to be more radical has he had not experienced slavery and his placement in the North meant that he did not share the fear of lynching that many in the South had. Du Bois also put more empathise on academic teaching and did not feel that Washingtons vocational education would be useful in helping the progress of African-Americans. However, Washington and Du Bois did share some similarities in political thought. They both recognised the importance of having the support of powerful white men, who could both finance and encourage their cause. While both Washington and Du Bois had good arguments for doing things in their particular ways, it is probably safe to say that neither had perfect strategies. Washington was too timid to argue for equality, and Du Bois had no practical ideas he could implement. It is fair to suggest that a mixture of their two views would have been the best way to progress the African-American cause, as Washington had practical methods of improved the average African-Americans life, such as the Tuskegee Institute, and Du Bois was able to protest the obvious oppression that African-Americans suffered. Bibliography American Memory from the Library of Congress, 2008, National Negro Business League, http://lcweb2.loc.gov:8081/ammem/amrlhtml/dtnegbus.html Fairclough, Adam, 2002, Better Day Coming: Blacks and Equality, 1890-2000, New York: Penguin Books Franklin, John H., Meier, August, 1982, Black Leaders of the Twentieth Century, Illinois: University of Illinois Press History Matters, 2006, Booker T. Washington Delivers the 1895 Atlanta Compromise Speech, http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/39/ History Matters, 2006, W.E.B. DuBois Critiques Booker T. Washington: Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others, http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/40 TeachingAmericanHistory.org, 2008, The Talented Tenth by WEB Du Bois, http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=174 White, John,1985, Black Leadership in America 1895-1968, New York: Longman Inc.

How does neglect during infancy affect cognitive development in young c

Child maltreatment takes on many forms and child neglect is the most common. Studies have found that child neglect can be more detrimental to development than physical abuse (Colvert, E., Rutter, M., Kreppner, J., Beckett, C., Castle, J., Groothues, C. & Sonuga-Barke, 2008). Despite this fact, neglect is the least commonly reported form of maltreatment, as it does not leave bruises and marks like physical abuse (DiPanfilis, D., 2006). Neglect during infancy has been found to affect all aspects of development: physical, cognitive, and psychosocial (Hawley, T., Gunner, M., 2000). This paper will examine the effects neglect has on specific areas of cognitive functioning. According to Jean Piaget we all go through stages of cognitive development that aid us in constructing our knowledge of the world. During infancy we are in Piaget’s sensorimotor stage where we begin our construction of the world by coordinating what we think, touch, smell and taste with how we move (Santrock, J., 2011). When an infant is not given the opportunity to explore their world they are not able to progress through the sensorimotor phase effectively. Various factors may lead to the insufficient progression through the sensorimotor stage but this paper will focus specifically on neglect. Neglect is difficult to define in terms of a set of behaviors that are synonymous with neglect because what is considered neglect varies based on the age and developmental level of the child. For the purpose of this paper neglect will be defined as the denial of proper physical, educational, emotional and moral attention and care (DiPanfilis, D., 2006). In 2008 Child Protective Services received 3.3 million reports of child maltreatment and seventy-one percent of them we... ...uncil on the Developing Child, & National Forum on Early Childhood Policy and Programs. (2011). Building the Brain’s â€Å"Air Traffic Control† System: How Early Experiences Shape the Development of Executive Function. Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. Retrieved from http://developingchild.harvard.edu/ 8. Eigsti, I., & Cicchetti, D. (2004). The impact of child maltreatment on expressive syntax at 60 months. Developmental Science, 7(1), 88-102. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00325.x 9. Majer, M., Nater, U. M., Lin, J.-M. S., Capuron, L., & Reeves, W. C. (2010). Association of Childhood Trauma with Cognitive Function in Healthy Adults: A Pilot Study. BMC Neurology. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/ pdfviewer?sid=95e34d47-cde9-4f93-b9ba-82931731842d%40sessionmgr14&vid=1&hid=25

Martin Luther King Jr. :: Racism MLK History Historican Essays

Martin Luther King Jr.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Martin Luther King Jr. was definitely an influential speaker and writer. He was able to move people with his ideas and words. In his letter from the Birmingham jail he was trying to inform people of the injustices that African Americans were experiencing at this time. His audience was mainly the clergymen of the church. Since most Americans at this time believed that African Americans were uneducated and not on the same level as white Americans, MLK had to prove otherwise. MLK did this by using strong rhetoric in his speeches and letters. Two of the rhetoric styles that I feel was most effective were his use of logic and pathos. MLK knew that if he was going to make an impression on his audience he was going to have to bring his A game.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  On page 182 we see some of MLK first usage of logos. He states that he is in Birmingham because of the injustice that is occurring there. He compares this to when the prophets in the eighth century B.C. left their homes to spread the word of Christ. He also compares himself to Paul, when he carried the word of Jesus Christ to the Greco-Roman world. I feel this is important for his letter because most of his audience was clergymen, and it also shows the importance of his message and also him being there in Birmingham. On the next page he breaks down the process and steps in a nonviolent campaign.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  MLK also does a good job of showing his emotions through pathos. He compliments his readers on page 182 by telling them that they are wise men and men of genuine good will. Another time when MLK uses pathos that stands out at me is on page 186 when he states that he has to explain to his six year old daughter that she cant attend fun world because the color of her skin. He also says â€Å"Its hurts him when he can see the clouds of

My Brother Cried :: Personal Narrative Death Papers

My Brother Cried I stand there shivering as tears stream down my face and roll onto my coat. I cannot believe she is really gone-- she was only four months old. It is not fair to take her away from her family; she was only a baby. I listen as the bishop and the priest try to comfort our pain, but somehow they make it more of a grievous reality-- Stephanie is really gone. When the bishop finishes blessing the grave, I hear the echos of Stephanie's anguished mother, "Don't take my baby away, I love her!" I ponder her words as they ring in my head; it makes me think, "Did I really love her?" I know I did, but at first I tried not to. I cry because of my heartlessness; Stephanie only needed love and attention while she existed on earth. As I watch her mother weep, I condemn myself-- a terrible aunt. Despite my crude heart, I soon realize that Stephanie touched all of our lives, not just mine, in some way or another. Stephanie Becomes Extremely Sick Stephanie Christine Schank was born on a quiet, rainy Sunday in October. Immediately after church, my older brother Chris and I traveled over thirty miles north from Silver Spring, Maryland to Gaithersburg to see our newborn niece. Despite the familiar picturesque autumn scenery, we drove on Interstate 270 in dismal silence. We heard something might have gone wrong during the birth. Chris and I did not know what to expect. Upon arrival at Shady Grove Hospital, a nurse guided us to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. A million troubling thoughts raced through my mind. Could something possibly be wrong with the baby? No way! That would never happen to a righteous Mormon family. Why would God give a honorable family an affliction as serious as this? I never expected anything unfortunate to happen to my family or me, and especially not to my brother and his wife. I thought about Marisel, Stephanie's mother: perhaps she had a hard birth and the doctors needed specialists. I rationalized an y possible problem and convinced myself that everything was fine. Chris and I sat in painful silence as we waited patiently for someone to come answer our many questions. Finally, Mike, my oldest brother, and his home teacher strolled down the hallway. I assumed that Mike had taken him back to see Stephanie and Marisel.

Leader More Feared than Loved: Evaluating Chapter 17

A leader is someone who is followed by others. All managers are not leaders, but good leaders can be good managers. Those who are not trusted or respected by their employees may fail when attempting to institute something new. They can tell everyone to do something, and even show them how, but the employees do not embrace the new program and it may not succeed. Employees, on the other hand, will embrace a new program (even if they don't particularly like it) simply because they trust the manager's judgment and vision.We have heard about military leaders who led their troops into dangerous, near-certain death situations. On the other hand, we heard about soldiers in Vietnam who assassinated officers rather than obey them. Why would soldiers in the first example follow the officer into battle knowing they would probably be killed, while those in the second case not only refused to follow, but actually went so far as to kill the officer? Was it because of the cause or because of the off icer?Niccolà ² Machiavelli wrote The Prince during the Renaissance in sixteenth-century Florence, Italy. It was one of the first texts on leadership. Machiavelli was a government official during a period of warfare and political intrigue between city-states vying for hegemony, and he had a cynical view of human nature, believing that people were motivated by very narrow self-interest.Most highlighted in the book is Machiavelli’s dictum, found in Chapter 17, which advised the leader or prince that it was better to be feared than to be loved by the governed because love is a fickle emotion, whereas fear is constant. In other words, survival is a basic human instinct that dominates other emotions. Machiavelli also suggested that a leader should engage in lies or deceptions for the good of society, as long as he appears to be virtuous to the people.The leader should be fair yet tough, harshly punishing disloyal subjects to discourage others from engaging in treason. Machiavelli believed that the aristocrats close in stature to the prince posed the greatest threat to his welfare and that the prince had to use cunning and intrigue to keep them off balance. Thus, he warned the leader not to trust his peers. He believed that an effective leader forms alliances of convenience with some enemies to keep more powerful enemies off balance.Summarizing Chapter 17At the beginning of Chapter 17 of The Prince, Machiavelli purports that there is no doubt that the leader must have compassion.   Similar to being generous, compassion is usually admired by everyone. However, Machiavelli warned that a prince must be careful that he does not show compassion indiscriminately. If a prince is too compassionate, and does not adequately punish disloyal subjects, he creates an atmosphere of disorder, since his subjects take the liberty to do what they please—even to the extremes of murder and theft. With this, Machiavelli envisioned that these crimes might harm the entire c ommunity, whereas executions harm only the individuals who commit crimes.Thus, Machiavelli suggested that some degree of cruelty is necessary to maintain order in a particular community. However, the prince must heed the warning of being judicious in terms of his decisions with regards to cruelty; it should be coupled with critical judgement, humanity and prudence.At this point, Machiavelli reflected on whether is it better off being feared or being loved. Ideally, a prince should be both loved and feared, but this condition is nearly perfect and difficult to attain. So Machiavelli deemed, when forced to make a choice, it is much better to be feared than loved. This is because men, by nature, are â€Å"ungrateful, fickle, dissembling, anxious to flee danger, and covetous of gain.† This decision is most applicable during times of danger or emergencies, it is easier to break a bond of love when the situation arises, but the fear of punishment is always effective, regardless of the situation.Yet, Machiavelli reminded that when choosing to generate fear, a prince must be wary to avoid inducing hatred. This is for the reason that the leader must make sure that every move he makes are properly justified and agreeable to majority of his people. Most importantly, leaders should not abuse his authority by taking the property of his subjects or take their women, since these actions are most likely to breed hatred. If a prince must confiscate property, he must make sure he has a convincing reason. With one’s army, however, there is no such thing as too much cruelty. Keeping an army disciplined and united requires cruelty, even inhuman cruelty.In a nutshell, Chapter 17 of The Prince argues that it is better for a prince to be severe when punishing people rather than merciful because severity through death sentences affects only a few, but it discourages crimes which affects many people. Moreover, Machiavelli ultimately recommended that it is better to be fea red than to be loved. But Machiavelli warned of the prince should avoid being hated, which he can easily accomplish by not taking away the property of his subjects: â€Å"people more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their inheritance.†Man of No Virtueâ€Å"The man of virtà º has no virtue.†Ã‚   This statement does adequately describe one of Machiavelli’s position in The Prince.   Machiavelli can be seen as a supporter of Remigio and Dante, rather than Aristotle. Throughout his treatise, Machiavelli most definitely strives to achieve peace, but he feels that virtue is not necessary.   Rather, Machiavelli suggests that peace should be the sole legitimizing factor of a ruler.   A good ruler should simply rule by whatever means necessary to achieve peace.   A good ruler ignores virtue and must be practical, rather than impractical.   The practical ruler is tightfisted, justly cruel, feared and respected, dependent on subject loyal ty, and able to use advisers as tools.First and foremost, what is the difference between virtà º and virtue?   A person who is said to possess virtue is commonly seen as a person who is of high moral excellence and upright goodness.   Common virtues include prudence, courage, and practicality.   Virtues are most often found in people who are seen as good.   Virtà º, while extremely similar to virtue, is not quite the same thing in terms of Machiavelli’s usage of the word.   On pages 103 and 104 in Appendix B of The Prince, virtà º is defined.   It is defined as having various senses, which include, â€Å"ability, skill, energy, determination, strength, spiritedness, courage, or prowess.†Ã‚   The common reader might interpret all of these senses as differing aspects of virtue.   Also, a good ruler is commonly perceived as having virtue or even virtà º.   However, Machiavelli had something a little different in mind.Normally, the term virtà º is most ly frequently used synonymously with the term virtue.   Machiavelli uses the term a little differently.   On page 104, it states that, â€Å"Machiavelli’s use of the word has overtones of ‘ruthlessness,’ which is not a characteristic of a good man.†Ã‚   Of course, the word which is being described is virtà º.   On the same page of Appendix B, virtà º is properly defined in Machiavellian terms.   It states, â€Å"Virtà º, then, in this usual sense (or set of senses) denotes qualities that may have been combined with ‘villainy†¦Ã¢â‚¬ Ã‚   Therefore, Machiavelli is generally arguing that the man of villainy and ruthlessness has no moral excellence and upright goodness.   Since good leaders possess virtà º, good leaders must thereby be villainous and even nefarious.   This can be seen throughout the whole of The Prince.Throughout The Prince, Machiavelli argues that in order to be an excellent ruler, one must possess virtà º.   V irtue is definitely not necessary under a Machiavellian form of rule.   According to Machiavelli, a good ruler is one who is in control and will do whatever is necessary to be successful.   The most notable examples can be found in chapters fifteen through twenty-three.In chapter 15 of The Prince, Machiavelli gives his first argument as to why rulers should be ruthless.   On page 55, Machiavelli states, â€Å"Yet one should not be troubled about becoming notorious for those vices without which it is difficult to preserve one’s power†¦Ã¢â‚¬ Ã‚   On the same page, Machiavelli goes on to write, â€Å"†¦doing some things that seem virtuous may result in one’s ruin, whereas doing other things that seem vicious may strengthen one’s position and cause one to flourish.†Ã‚   Essentially, Machiavelli is saying that a superb ruler should not worry about possessing virtue.   A proper ruler should have no problem with making friends with vice, so l ong as in doing so the ruler is being practical and successful.   After all, there is no reason to be ruthless without practicality.   The only reason for a lack of practicality would be sheer and blatant ignorance.In chapter sixteen of The Prince, Machiavelli goes on to write that a good ruler should not be overly generous.   On page 57, Machiavelli states that the charitable ruler will rule while, â€Å"†¦being despised and hated; and generosity will lead to both.†Ã‚   This emphasizes the fact that a tight-fisted ruler will be more popular, and thereby, the better ruler.   A ruler who is parsimonious will have money when it is necessary.   Machiavelli stresses this on page 56.   Rulers who do not waste their money on building projects, artistic patronage, or friendly gifts, will have plenty of money when it is needed, say when a rival state rises up to attack.   A ruler who is tight-fisted also would not need to tax his subjects as much as a generous rule r.   A generous ruler would need constant high taxes due to his lavish expenditure or open-handedness.   Of course, generosity is a virtue; and in order to posses virtà º, and hence, a good rule, generosity must be left in the dirt.   Therefore, the man who is tight-fisted has no virtue.Machiavelli’s next argument as to why the ruler of virtà º can have no virtue comes in the next chapter, that is, chapter seventeen.   When comparing the cruel and feared ruler to the merciful and loved ruler, the cruel and feared ruler is the exceedingly better ruler.   After all, Machiavelli states on page 59, â€Å"†¦it is much safer to be feared than loved.†Ã‚   Cruelty is needed to maintain order. If a ruler is cruel to simply those who disobey the law, the lawbreakers alone will suffer.   Hence, the people under the ruler will learn not to break the law, due to fear of punishment.   Therefore, peaceful order will surely ensue.   However, if he is excessively kind and lets public order break down, everyone suffers from the increase in the excess of subsequent robbery, murder, rape, etc.   Cruelty is most definitely not a virtue; so therefore, Machiavelli agrees again that the man of virtà º lacks any virtue.  Next, on page 64 of chapter nineteen, Machiavelli argues that a ruler becomes despised when he acquires the reputation of being, â€Å"†¦inconstant, frivolous, effeminate, pusillanimous and irresolute: a ruler must avoid contempt as if it were a reef.†Ã‚   In order for a ruler to stay in the people’s favor, he must become none of these.   Rather, a good ruler would constantly try to be the opposite of these.   Thus, a good ruler must be usual and accepted, determined and motivated, masculine and rugged, dauntless and courageous, and resolute and unequivocal.If these qualities are necessary for the best possible ruler, that ruler should have no problem in trying to attain and maintain these qualities.   Again, the ruler should not bother with virtue.   Rather, he or she should attempt whatever in their power is necessary to achieve and preserve these qualities.   Also, although some people may view these qualities as virtuous, they are still to be attained through whatever means necessary.   This is a quality of a man of virtà º.   Virtue must be placed aside while attempting to gain these qualities.Following this argument comes one which involves the importance of a fortress.   On page 76, Machiavelli states, â€Å"†¦I criticize anyone who relies upon fortresses, and does not worry about incurring the hatred of the people.†Ã‚   Despite the great importance of military power, a ruler who bases his rule on building fortresses to intimidate and threaten his subjects cannot rule securely. The subjects would simply not tolerate it.   More than likely, they would look for assistance elsewhere, such as a foreign power, and overthrow the ruler.   Therefore, the single best fortress that a ruler can have is the loyalty of his or her subjects.Without subject loyalty a ruler is useless.   In order to maintain subject loyalty, a ruler must be good.   In order to be a good ruler he or she must be feared by the subjects, as well as be cruel and tight-fisted.   Again, this emphasizes the fact that the best possible ruler can posses no virtue.A final argument is brought forth in chapters twenty-two and twenty-three.   On page 80, Machiavelli states, â€Å"The choosing of ministers is a very important matter for a ruler: whether or not they are good depends on whether he is shrewd or not.†Ã‚   A prince needs able advisers.   If the ruler chooses wise advisors, the subjects of the ruler will take him or her to be wise as well.   Also, just like the subjects of the rulers, advisers should also be loyal and fearful of the ruler.   The ruler must act the same way towards his advisors as he or she does to the subjects.   This wil l show the people that they are no different from the advisors.   No jealously would ensue and no rights would be violated.   Although, there was no specific rule regarding rights at the time, the subjects would no doubt at least feel inferior.   Thus, rule would be maintained by virtà º and not by virtue, as was previously stated, because cruelty is needed to maintain peace.Machiavelli goes on in chapter twenty-tree to describe more specifically how a ruler is to properly use his or her advisors.   After a ruler has taken advice from the advisor, he must make up his own mind about policy decisions. A good ruler should not accept unsolicited advice, and he or she should not let the advisers talk the ruler into constantly changing his mind.   This would show everyone that the ruler possesses poor qualities of a ruler.   The ruler must rule, not the advisors.   Again, the ruler must do this by whatever means necessary.   Thus, virtà º is again favored above virtue.Ul timately, in Machiavellian terms, the man of virtà º most definitely does not possess virtue.   The man of virtà º, or the good ruler, must be cruel, feared, tightfisted, reliant on subject allegiance, and able to use advisors as tools.   The man of virtue would never be any of these.   Therefore, the man of virtue would not make a good ruler.   Therefore, Machiavelli definitely does not agree with Aristotle in his opinion that virtue can legitimize a ruler.   Rather, Machiavelli agrees with Remigio and Dante, in that peace can be substituted for virtue.   So long as peace is achieved, a ruler is successful and good.   Peace, through whatever means necessary, is solely legitimizing.ConclusionSome leaders nowadays are still taking their cues from Machiavelli's proposition in Chapter 17 of The Prince, believe that fear is more reliable than love as a means of influencing people. It is true that if someone hates and fears you, his or her behavior may be quite predictabl e. If you have the allies to back up your threats, it may not be necessary for you to get along with the people you work with. But power in public bureaucracy is often a temporary thing, like powerlessness. Yesterday's powerless subordinate may be tomorrow's powerful boss.Machiavelli proposed that it is better to be more feared than loved. You can lead by the force of high moral example. History and experience have proven that it could be done. But it's risky, because people are fickle, and they will abandon you at the first sign of failure. Fear is much more reliable, and lasts longer. Once you show that you are capable of dealing out terrible punishment to your enemies, your power will be far greater.In closer analysis, Machiavelli’s proposition is somewhat more troublesome to apply in today’s hierarchy. At present, it is unusual for any leader to have authority over every aspect of his or her job or status. For example, a supervisor might need the help of the person nel office, if he wants to hire someone. You need the help of the budget staff if you must obtain certain resources and need to move money from one cost center to another. Organizations operate informally, as well as through a formal hierarchy. In order to get things done, you must sometimes exchange favors and information.Thus, the effectiveness of a leader in any organization will be a direct reflection of his or her ability to get along with people. You will find it easier to get your work done if people want to help you because they like you or even because they feel sorry for you. If you are feared or hated, you may get cooperation when people have no choice, but the minute you turn your back, your colleagues will find a thousand ways to undermine your attitude.Working in organizations or leading a community involves a series of exchanges rather than power relationships. Like the rest of society, organizations are more complex in the twenty-first century.   As organizations c hange, downsize, and modernize, complexity does not decrease because organizations increase their use of advanced technology and knowledge. Machiavelli’s proposal that leaders should better be â€Å"feared than loved† would be definitely inappropriate and dangerous, if applied in our time. Just think about the people you step on as you climb up the career ladder might very well see you again on your way down the ladder. Effective leaders should take the long term perspective in considering their strategies.Aggressive leadership does not require you to disregard the feelings of subordinates or co-workers. Leaders who are committed to the long term perspective usually become quite skilled at influencing people and at stroking key individuals within the organization. Thus, as Machiavelli’s proposition might have some good points, it could not be well applicable, if we consider the fast-changing times that, more often than not, frown upon leaders who lash out fear o n their people.Works CitedMachiavelli, N. The Prince. (Anthony Grafton, Introduction; George Bull, trans.). London: Penguin Classics, 1999.