Abstract
Aristotle holds that a tragic hero should have the qualities of spoudaios, hamartia, and peripeteia. This essay carefully examines Oedipus, the protagonist of Sophocles’ tragic drama Oedipus Rex, looking for these three main qualities. Using quotes from several scholarly sources, including Aristotle’s own Poetica, it is shown that in his nobility, in his error in judgment, and in his tragic reversal of fortune, Oedipus perfectly exemplifies Aristotle’s three-fold definition of a tragic hero.
Oedipus: The Ultimate Tragic Hero
“This is the king who solved the famous riddle | And towered up, most powerful of men. | No mortal eyes but looked on him with envy, | Yet in the end ruin swept over him (Exodos, 293-296),” sings Chorogos to all the Men of Thebes at the sorrowful conclusion of Sophocles’(425 B.C.) Oedipus Rex. Oedipus, the protagonist of this drama, begins as a noble and respected king, but discovers that he has unknowingly killed his own father and married his own mother. He subsequently loses his family and his kingdom, blinds himself and goes into exile. In his nobility, in his error in judgment, and in his tragic reversal of fortune, Oedipus perfectly exemplifies Aristotle’s three-fold definition of a tragic hero.
Oedipus is nobility three times over: he is a prince by birth to Jocasta and Laios and thereby heir to the throne of Thebes, he is a prince via adoption to Polybus and Merope and thereby heir to the throne of Corinth, and he becomes the king of Thebes by election. Aristotle himself uses the noble Oedipus as an example of what a hero should be. In Poetica XIII, Aristotle (350 B.C.) says, “He must be one who is highly renowned and prosperous—a personage like Oedipus, Thyestes, or other illustrious men of such families.” From the initial lines of the prologue of Oedipus the King, it is shown that Oedipus is not a common ruler – he is a great king. The people revere him, almost elevating him to godlike status. Likewise, Oedipus loves the people; he is compassionate and committed to his responsibility to protect those under his dominion. He aches for the pain of his blighted city, even to the point of losing sleep (Prologue, 67).
Oedipus is a just king, an upright king. His relentless pursuit of the truth is admirable, even though it is this very thing that causes his downfall, as Creon states in the Exodos, “…but rather think | How, … you served your own destruction (290-291).” King Oedipus refuses to be dissuaded from his goal of uncovering King Laios’ murderer, and he does not stop even when he himself is implicated. Martin Kallich (1966), in his article “Oedipus: From Man to Archetype,” says “Oedipus suffers not because of his guilt, but in spite of his goodness (p33).” Thus, as Aristotle’s definition demands, Oedipus is the spoudaios, or noble, hero whose fate is undeserved yet still self-caused. In all this, he is not too far removed from the people, which is another requirement of the tragic hero. The priest who begs audience of King Oedipus in the prologue tells him, “…you were never | Better informed than we, nor could we teach you: (39-40).”
Oedipus is most certainly noble; however, there is much argument regarding whether his hamartia, or tragic flaw, was moral or intellectual. “A tragedy must portray a hero who, in a moral sense, is worthy of respect (spoudaios) and who makes a significant intellectual (not moral) error which leads to his downfall from happiness to misery,” states Leon Golden (1984) in his essay “Othello, Hamlet, and Aristotelian Tragedy.” Some say that he is prideful and too quick to anger in his responses to Teiresias, the blind prophet; and to Creon, his brother-in-law, he is hasty to judge and draw conclusions. This could be misinterpreted as a moral error, but his response, as Golden (1984) says later in the same article, “occurs for the right moral reasons.” These are intellectual errors—Oedipus is simply acting out of his great concern for his kingdom. Even when he unknowingly kills his father, it is under provocation, and in what he thinks is self-defense; again, an intellectual, not a moral error.
Another factor that clearly plays into the hamartia of Oedipus is fate. Before Oedipus is conceived, King Laios is warned by an oracle that any son born to him and Jocasta would rise up and kill his father and sleep with his mother. Oedipus himself, upon inquiring of the oracle, is told that he will kill his father and sleep with his mother. In Janet Green’s (1993) “Review of ‘Oedipus Rex’” she says,
We have in the drama, then, not just bitter irony played out by incredible coincidence, nor
the story of a proud man rightly humbled. We have a powerful statement that the inscrutable gods exert extreme power over the unjust and the just, who suffer alike from their mysteriously random power.
In fact, the gods almost seem to purposely lead Oedipus astray, by telling him of his future grievous deeds, rather than his true heritage—that he was adopted by Polybus and Merope. In the end, Oedipus cries out that the gods hate him (Exodos, 123). In this seeming divine decree of Oedipus’ future, it is rightly asked how he can be held responsible. Any tragic flaw on his part seems small in comparison to the forces that appear to be at work behind the scenes. The conclusion that may be drawn here is that his true error was in attempting to avoid this future, yet even in this, his great integrity is shown. In his inner heart, he does not wish to commit these heinous deeds that the gods insist he will commit. “In a moral sense he is completely innocent of the crimes that have been committed because he did not will them and strenuously sought to avoid them,” says Golden (1983). He continues, “He did make serious intellectual errors, but they were morally justifiable mistakes which other good men who were not ‘perfect in virtue and justice’ might also have made.”
A running theme throughout the play is the intellectual blindness of Oedipus, and the blindness of those around him. The people of Thebes cry out to the gods for wisdom, Oedipus calls for the oracle, his wife Jocasta even questions the veracity of the oracle’s prophecies, but it is only the physically blind Teresias who is truly able to see that Oedipus is the cause of the recent plagues. Teresias points out the king’s true hamartia, that of intellectual blindness, with these pointed words: “You cannot see the evil (Scene 1, 149),” and again “But I say that you, with both your eyes, are blind (Scene 1, 196).” Teresias prophesies of Oedipus’ future physical blindness, the result of his inability to discern the horrible deeds that he has commited. This is the true reason behind his murder of the king, marriage of his mother, anger at Teresias, and even his accusal of Creon—Oedipus, who had once untangled the riddle of the Sphinx, was simply unable to see the reality behind of any of these situations. Oedipus’ anagnorisis, or recognition, of his blindness is very slow in coming, but eventually his eyes open up to the truth, and so begins his tragic downfall.
In Oedipus’ peripeteia, or reversal of fortunes, it is interesting to note that he who was once thrice noble, calls himself “Thrice miserable (Exodos, 151).” The obvious result of his downfall is his loss of the kingdom of Thebes, as well as his inability to reign over Corinth upon the death of his adopted father, Polybus. Oedipus reveals that his true misery is found in that he cannot bear to see his parents after death, his daughters, Antigone and Ismene, during life, or the images of the gods in either life or death (Exodos, 141-149). It is for this reason that he chooses to blind himself rather than commit suicide, thus fulfilling the prophecy of the prophet Teresias. Once again, his integrity shines through, as he is willing to execute punishment upon the murderer of King Laios, just as he had decreed before the people, even though the murder was done in ignorance, and the murderer turned out to be himself. The penalty Oedipus chose for himself was deemed harsh even by the chorus leader, who felt that blindness was a fate worse than death (Exodos, 139). Oedipus insists that blinding himself was just (Exodos, 141), again showing his spoudaios. Before leaving in exile, Oedipus begs forgiveness of Creon for his wrongful accusations, and takes the time to embrace his children and commit them to Creon’s guardianship. Charles Segal (1982) says, “He is not broken by suffering … The irrational extinction of earned good fortune and exterior power reveals a new source of strength in his tragic knowledge.”
Oedipus demonstrates spoudaios, hamartia, and peripeteia; nobility, error in judgment, and reversal of fortunes respectively. In these three areas and the characteristics pertaining to them, Oedipus more than qualifies as a tragic hero. In the words of Aristotle (350 B.C.) himself, “Now the best tragedies are founded on the story of a few houses—on the fortunes of Alcmaeon, Oedipus, Orestes, Meleager, Thyestes, Telephus, and those others who have done or suffered something terrible.”
References
Aristotle. (350 B.C.) Poetica XIII. Translated by Butcher, S. H. Retrieved from
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.2.2.html
Green, J. M. (1993, Fall) Review of Oedipus Rex. In the Explicator 52.1 2-3. Rpt. in Drama for Students.Ed. David M. Galens and Lynn M. Spampinato. Vol. 1. Detroit: Gale, 1998.
Retrieved from Literature Resource Center. Web. 1 July 2010.
Golden, L. (1984, Summer) Othello, Hamlet, and Aristotelian tragedy. Shakespeare Quarterly
35.2, 142-156. Rpt. in Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Michelle Lee. Vol. 125. Detroit:
Gale, 2009. Retrieved from Literature Resource Center. Web. 1 July 2010.
Kallich, M. (1966) Oedipus: From man to archetype. Comparative Literature Studies 3.1, 33-35.Rpt. in Drama for Students. Ed. David M. Galens and Lynn M. Spampinato. Vol. 1.
Detroit: Gale, 1998. Retrieved from Literature Resource Center. Web. 1 July 2010.
Segal, C. (n.d.) Sophocles. Ancient Writers: Greece and Rome. Ed. T. James Luce. Vol. 1. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1982. Literature Resource Center. Web. 1 July 2010.
Sophocles. (425 B.C.). Oedipus the king. In X. J. Kennedy, & D. Gioia, Literature An
Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing pp. 860-897. Boston: Longman,
2010.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
God, the Immortal Blacksmith
Abstract
William Blake’s poem “The Tyger” is analyzed in this essay, primarily focusing on his use of metaphor. The stanzas are discussed chronologically, and the individual words and questions that Blake uses are explained in a way that shows their relation to the overall metaphor. The entire poem is a single metaphor that likens the tiger to a blacksmith’s creation in order to reveal the awe-inspiring qualities of an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent, and glorious Creator God.
God, the Immortal Blacksmith
“The Tyger” by William Blake is a metaphor that likens the tiger to a blacksmith’s creation in order to reveal the awe-inspiring qualities of an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent, and glorious Creator God. Even Blake’s choice of trochaic tetrameter, with the use of catalexis at the end of each line, puts in mind the rhythm of a hammer beating upon an anvil. This six quatrain lyric poem indeed sings of experience; it is a song that praises the Creator, in order that others would encounter the marvelous grandeur of God. The questions that are raised do not focus on the tiger, but kindle curiosity within the reader to learn more about the one who made this fearsome creature.
The metaphor begins as the Blacksmith designs the tiger. He, the Blacksmith, is described as “immortal,” a description which points to God as the Creator (3). His “hand” and his “eye” reveal his artistry, and the “symmetry” of the tiger shows forth the aesthetic balance of his creation (3-4). The tiger is portrayed as ‘fearful’ (4), and Fur says, in his article, “An Overview of ‘The Tyger,’” “‘fearful’ can mean ‘scary’—the meaning to which we're accustomed—or awe-inspiring. The speaker is in awe of whomever made the tyger and of the tyger as well. Perhaps the point of Blake's poem is to inspire us with awe of the tyger and its maker (Furr, n.d.).” With his line, “What immortal hand or eye | Could frame thy fearful symmetry (3-4)?” Blake queries, “Who could even dream to make something as visually pleasing and awe-inspiring as this tiger?”
And indeed, who could imagine planning such an awesome project, let alone putting his plan into action? This Blacksmith, in his omniscience, searched all of creation to find the substance to form the tiger’s eyes which, “burning bright” (1), are able to see in the darkest night of the forest. He not only finds this obscure material, but in his omnipotence, he is able to retrieve it. He shapes the tiger with his great strength and artistic skill, and when the tiger comes to life, he stands his ground and continues his work. He is fearless.
Certainly, this could only be God standing behind the anvil; the tools he uses are beyond the tools of mortal comprehension. Blake asks, “What kind of tool, and in what sort of furnace, could the brain of such a cunning beast have been formed?” Only with supernatural tools could this task have been accomplished – tools that work on the soul and spirit. These tools include tongs that are able to “grasp” hold of ethereal intelligence (14-16).
As the starlight illuminates the Blacksmith’s nocturnal masterpiece, and as dew settles upon the landscape, he displays his pleasure in the tiger and in the diversity of his creation – he who made the lamb has also now made the tiger. “Both the Lamb and the Tyger are parts of Creation. The question at the end of ‘The Tyger’ is not meant for discussion and answer, but as a challenge to awareness. ‘Did he who made the Lamb make thee (Stevenson, 1999)?’” says Stevenson in his essay, “Blake’s Progress.” From the meek and mild lamb to the mighty and ferocious tiger, God glories in the works of his hands.
In the final stanza, Blake repeats the opening lines of this poem with one noticeable difference: “What immortal hand or eye | Dare frame thy fearful symmetry (23-24)?” The switch of the questioning word “could” (4) to the more assertive word “dare” (24) portrays clearly the glory of the Blacksmith. Who dares to dream of making so magnificent a creation? With this question, Blake effectively answers all of the other questions he has posed, for only one Blacksmith possibly could – the immortal God.
It would be quite an injustice for any reader of “The Tyger” to walk away from this poem having only seen the fierceness of the orange and black striped tiger with brightly glowing eyes within the imagery of Blake’s poem. This metaphoric poem absolutely does lift up the tiger to be appreciated for its beauty, but it is the skillful craftsman, the Blacksmith, who is lifted up as the one who is truly worthy of all the praise and adoration. Where would the tiger be without the master Blacksmith? It is he who envisaged this mighty beast. It is he who fashioned him. And thus, by way of the Blacksmith and the tiger, Blake declares to us the incomparable glory of Creator God.
References
Blake, W. (1794). The tyger. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from Liberty University Online: Course
Content English 101
Furr, D. (n.d.). An Overview of "The Tyger." Poetry for Students . Detroit: Gale. Literature
Resource Center. Web. 12 June 2010.
Stevenson, W. (1999). Blake's Progress. Essays In Criticism , 49 (3/4), 197. Retrieved 12 June
2010 from http://eic.oxfordjournals.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/cgi/reprint/XLIX/3/195
William Blake’s poem “The Tyger” is analyzed in this essay, primarily focusing on his use of metaphor. The stanzas are discussed chronologically, and the individual words and questions that Blake uses are explained in a way that shows their relation to the overall metaphor. The entire poem is a single metaphor that likens the tiger to a blacksmith’s creation in order to reveal the awe-inspiring qualities of an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent, and glorious Creator God.
God, the Immortal Blacksmith
“The Tyger” by William Blake is a metaphor that likens the tiger to a blacksmith’s creation in order to reveal the awe-inspiring qualities of an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent, and glorious Creator God. Even Blake’s choice of trochaic tetrameter, with the use of catalexis at the end of each line, puts in mind the rhythm of a hammer beating upon an anvil. This six quatrain lyric poem indeed sings of experience; it is a song that praises the Creator, in order that others would encounter the marvelous grandeur of God. The questions that are raised do not focus on the tiger, but kindle curiosity within the reader to learn more about the one who made this fearsome creature.
The metaphor begins as the Blacksmith designs the tiger. He, the Blacksmith, is described as “immortal,” a description which points to God as the Creator (3). His “hand” and his “eye” reveal his artistry, and the “symmetry” of the tiger shows forth the aesthetic balance of his creation (3-4). The tiger is portrayed as ‘fearful’ (4), and Fur says, in his article, “An Overview of ‘The Tyger,’” “‘fearful’ can mean ‘scary’—the meaning to which we're accustomed—or awe-inspiring. The speaker is in awe of whomever made the tyger and of the tyger as well. Perhaps the point of Blake's poem is to inspire us with awe of the tyger and its maker (Furr, n.d.).” With his line, “What immortal hand or eye | Could frame thy fearful symmetry (3-4)?” Blake queries, “Who could even dream to make something as visually pleasing and awe-inspiring as this tiger?”
And indeed, who could imagine planning such an awesome project, let alone putting his plan into action? This Blacksmith, in his omniscience, searched all of creation to find the substance to form the tiger’s eyes which, “burning bright” (1), are able to see in the darkest night of the forest. He not only finds this obscure material, but in his omnipotence, he is able to retrieve it. He shapes the tiger with his great strength and artistic skill, and when the tiger comes to life, he stands his ground and continues his work. He is fearless.
Certainly, this could only be God standing behind the anvil; the tools he uses are beyond the tools of mortal comprehension. Blake asks, “What kind of tool, and in what sort of furnace, could the brain of such a cunning beast have been formed?” Only with supernatural tools could this task have been accomplished – tools that work on the soul and spirit. These tools include tongs that are able to “grasp” hold of ethereal intelligence (14-16).
As the starlight illuminates the Blacksmith’s nocturnal masterpiece, and as dew settles upon the landscape, he displays his pleasure in the tiger and in the diversity of his creation – he who made the lamb has also now made the tiger. “Both the Lamb and the Tyger are parts of Creation. The question at the end of ‘The Tyger’ is not meant for discussion and answer, but as a challenge to awareness. ‘Did he who made the Lamb make thee (Stevenson, 1999)?’” says Stevenson in his essay, “Blake’s Progress.” From the meek and mild lamb to the mighty and ferocious tiger, God glories in the works of his hands.
In the final stanza, Blake repeats the opening lines of this poem with one noticeable difference: “What immortal hand or eye | Dare frame thy fearful symmetry (23-24)?” The switch of the questioning word “could” (4) to the more assertive word “dare” (24) portrays clearly the glory of the Blacksmith. Who dares to dream of making so magnificent a creation? With this question, Blake effectively answers all of the other questions he has posed, for only one Blacksmith possibly could – the immortal God.
It would be quite an injustice for any reader of “The Tyger” to walk away from this poem having only seen the fierceness of the orange and black striped tiger with brightly glowing eyes within the imagery of Blake’s poem. This metaphoric poem absolutely does lift up the tiger to be appreciated for its beauty, but it is the skillful craftsman, the Blacksmith, who is lifted up as the one who is truly worthy of all the praise and adoration. Where would the tiger be without the master Blacksmith? It is he who envisaged this mighty beast. It is he who fashioned him. And thus, by way of the Blacksmith and the tiger, Blake declares to us the incomparable glory of Creator God.
References
Blake, W. (1794). The tyger. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from Liberty University Online: Course
Content English 101
Furr, D. (n.d.). An Overview of "The Tyger." Poetry for Students . Detroit: Gale. Literature
Resource Center. Web. 12 June 2010.
Stevenson, W. (1999). Blake's Progress. Essays In Criticism , 49 (3/4), 197. Retrieved 12 June
2010 from http://eic.oxfordjournals.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/cgi/reprint/XLIX/3/195
The Most Dangerous Essay
Abstract
This essay examines the villains from “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell and “The Destructors” by Graham Green. By comparison and contrast, it is found that Trevor and General Zaroff possess different temperaments and behavioral traits, and yet have many similarities in method, background, and morality. Both villains are motivated by boredom and a need to express their superiority.
The Most Dangerous Essay
Many parallels can be drawn from “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell and “The Destructors” by Graham Greene, especially between Trevor and General Zaroff. Both of them are flat characters and both are the villains of the stories in which they reside. Trevor is the protagonist of “The Destructors” and General Zaroff is the antagonist of “The Most Dangerous Game.” Trevor and General Zaroff posses different temperaments and behavioral traits, and yet have many similarities in method, background, and morality. Both villains are motivated by boredom and a need to express their superiority.
General Zaroff is an older, white-haired gentleman who is affable, hospitable, and good natured, while Trevor is a young gang member who is brooding and silent. General Zaroff is a hunter, and as such is a man of action – he enjoys the chase, the hunt. The boy prefers to sit quietly while planning and scheming. Trevor does not show even “the smallest flicker of glee” (Greene, 1954), while Zaroff openly shows his amusement with the game by smiling when he finds Rainsford in a tree, and by verbally stating his pleasure (Connell, n.d.). When the unexpected happens and Mr. Thomas returns early, Trevor panics and begins to repeatedly say, “I’ll fix it” (Greene, 1954), which almost costs him his position of leadership with the gang. General Zaroff is nonchalant, albeit disappointed, when Rainsford escapes; he sits down, smokes, drinks some wine, and hums a tune from Madame Butterfly (Connell, n.d.). Despite these obvious differences in personality, these characters both pursue a dark path in life.
Both villains come from a well-to-do background, and despite their affluent upbringing, both have a false sense of morality. In the midst of destroying Mr. Thomas’ home, Trevor says, “We aren’t thieves” (Greene, 1954), and likewise the hunter reassures Rainsford that his word is trustworthy (Connell, n.d.) all the while preparing to hunt him down. Zaroff even attributes his hunting prowess to being a gift from God. Both of these characters feed their captives, as if that somehow justifies the heinous crimes that they are committing. Zaroff shows concern for Rainsford’s health just moments before announcing his intent to hunt him. While leading Mr. Thomas into a trap, Trevor aids him in climbing over the wall and even supports him when he stumbles. The lives of others mean little to either of these characters – to Trevor, Mr. Thomas’ home and personal effects are “just things” (Greene, 1954), and to General Zaroff, the people he hunts and murders are simply the “scum of the earth” (Connell, n.d.); General Zaroff truly believes he is doing the world a favor by killing them.
Trevor and Zaroff both have accomplices for their evil tasks; the first has his gang, and the latter has his pack of dogs and Ivan. While Trevor keeps the details of his plans secret from his victim, and tells his gang only on a need-to-know basis, General Zaroff gives his entire scheme in great detail to Rainsford. Likewise, both of them hide what they are doing from the authorities. When Trevor was asked about the police he replied, “They’d never know. We’d do it from the inside” (Greene, 1954). The General cleverly hides away on an island in order to maintain his murderous lifestyle, and even warns Rainsford against telling the outside world of his existence.
As the destruction of Mr. Thomas’ home commences, Trevor says that he is ‘looking for something special” (Greene, 1954), something out of the ordinary. This activity is already far from the normal for the gang, but for Trevor this thrill is not enough. He not only burns Mr. Thomas’ money just for fun, but also pulls down the walls of the home in what is called “the most dangerous task of all” (Greene, 1954). Zaroff, too, is looking for something different, more challenging. Having already invented his sport of hunting humans, his “most dangerous game,” he is once again bored, and finds that Rainsford offers a newer, more thrilling form of entertainment. Both villains are also striving for superiority; Trevor is seeking to be the leader of his gang, and General Zaroff wants to be the greatest hunter.
Even though these characters are found in separate stories written by different authors, the similarities between General Zaroff and Trevor are striking. And, despite the superficial variation in their dispositions, analysis of their stories shows that the common drive behind their reprobate actions is a mixture of boredom and a need for superiority.
References
Connell, R. (n.d.). The most dangerous game. Liberty University Online. Retrieved May 24,
2010 from Course Content English 102.
Greene, G. (1954). The destructors. Liberty University Online. Retrieved May 24, 2010 from
Course Content English 102.
This essay examines the villains from “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell and “The Destructors” by Graham Green. By comparison and contrast, it is found that Trevor and General Zaroff possess different temperaments and behavioral traits, and yet have many similarities in method, background, and morality. Both villains are motivated by boredom and a need to express their superiority.
The Most Dangerous Essay
Many parallels can be drawn from “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell and “The Destructors” by Graham Greene, especially between Trevor and General Zaroff. Both of them are flat characters and both are the villains of the stories in which they reside. Trevor is the protagonist of “The Destructors” and General Zaroff is the antagonist of “The Most Dangerous Game.” Trevor and General Zaroff posses different temperaments and behavioral traits, and yet have many similarities in method, background, and morality. Both villains are motivated by boredom and a need to express their superiority.
General Zaroff is an older, white-haired gentleman who is affable, hospitable, and good natured, while Trevor is a young gang member who is brooding and silent. General Zaroff is a hunter, and as such is a man of action – he enjoys the chase, the hunt. The boy prefers to sit quietly while planning and scheming. Trevor does not show even “the smallest flicker of glee” (Greene, 1954), while Zaroff openly shows his amusement with the game by smiling when he finds Rainsford in a tree, and by verbally stating his pleasure (Connell, n.d.). When the unexpected happens and Mr. Thomas returns early, Trevor panics and begins to repeatedly say, “I’ll fix it” (Greene, 1954), which almost costs him his position of leadership with the gang. General Zaroff is nonchalant, albeit disappointed, when Rainsford escapes; he sits down, smokes, drinks some wine, and hums a tune from Madame Butterfly (Connell, n.d.). Despite these obvious differences in personality, these characters both pursue a dark path in life.
Both villains come from a well-to-do background, and despite their affluent upbringing, both have a false sense of morality. In the midst of destroying Mr. Thomas’ home, Trevor says, “We aren’t thieves” (Greene, 1954), and likewise the hunter reassures Rainsford that his word is trustworthy (Connell, n.d.) all the while preparing to hunt him down. Zaroff even attributes his hunting prowess to being a gift from God. Both of these characters feed their captives, as if that somehow justifies the heinous crimes that they are committing. Zaroff shows concern for Rainsford’s health just moments before announcing his intent to hunt him. While leading Mr. Thomas into a trap, Trevor aids him in climbing over the wall and even supports him when he stumbles. The lives of others mean little to either of these characters – to Trevor, Mr. Thomas’ home and personal effects are “just things” (Greene, 1954), and to General Zaroff, the people he hunts and murders are simply the “scum of the earth” (Connell, n.d.); General Zaroff truly believes he is doing the world a favor by killing them.
Trevor and Zaroff both have accomplices for their evil tasks; the first has his gang, and the latter has his pack of dogs and Ivan. While Trevor keeps the details of his plans secret from his victim, and tells his gang only on a need-to-know basis, General Zaroff gives his entire scheme in great detail to Rainsford. Likewise, both of them hide what they are doing from the authorities. When Trevor was asked about the police he replied, “They’d never know. We’d do it from the inside” (Greene, 1954). The General cleverly hides away on an island in order to maintain his murderous lifestyle, and even warns Rainsford against telling the outside world of his existence.
As the destruction of Mr. Thomas’ home commences, Trevor says that he is ‘looking for something special” (Greene, 1954), something out of the ordinary. This activity is already far from the normal for the gang, but for Trevor this thrill is not enough. He not only burns Mr. Thomas’ money just for fun, but also pulls down the walls of the home in what is called “the most dangerous task of all” (Greene, 1954). Zaroff, too, is looking for something different, more challenging. Having already invented his sport of hunting humans, his “most dangerous game,” he is once again bored, and finds that Rainsford offers a newer, more thrilling form of entertainment. Both villains are also striving for superiority; Trevor is seeking to be the leader of his gang, and General Zaroff wants to be the greatest hunter.
Even though these characters are found in separate stories written by different authors, the similarities between General Zaroff and Trevor are striking. And, despite the superficial variation in their dispositions, analysis of their stories shows that the common drive behind their reprobate actions is a mixture of boredom and a need for superiority.
References
Connell, R. (n.d.). The most dangerous game. Liberty University Online. Retrieved May 24,
2010 from Course Content English 102.
Greene, G. (1954). The destructors. Liberty University Online. Retrieved May 24, 2010 from
Course Content English 102.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Good Stewardship
Good Stewardship
Rebecca Dennison
Liberty University
Abstract
There is much debate among Christians as to whether or not they should be involved in environmental causes, and great confusion surrounds the Biblical command to have dominion over the earth. Using the definition of environmentalism, and comparing Scriptural examples, this essay shows that Christians are to be good stewards of the earth. From this premise develops the understanding that stewardship and environmentalism, when boiled down to their basics, are definitively similar. It is a Christian responsibility to care for and learn about God’s creation for the betterment of humankind.
Good Stewardship
Merriam-Webster defines environmentalism as “advocacy of the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment; especially the movement to control pollution” (2010). Does that describe a part of the Christian’s role here on earth? And if so, what exactly should a Christian be doing to preserve and restore our planet? Many would say that this is a black and white issue; Christians should either be actively involved in ecological political arenas, or they should turn their backs upon this ‘pagan’ movement that only leads to Mother Earth worship and focus entirely on the eternal. But for Christians, this is not an either-or issue. The answer lies somewhere in the middle and can be found neatly placed within the pages of Scripture: Christians are to be good stewards of the earth.
In order to get an understanding of what stewardship looks like, it is necessary to look at the earliest commands that God gave to man. In Genesis, the first man and woman are commanded to reproduce and fill the earth with the human race, to subdue the earth, and to have dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26). They are also told to serve and keep the garden in which they live (Genesis 2:15). There has been much confusion over what it actually means to have dominion over the earth, and in fact, a gross misunderstanding of these terms has led some non-Christians to blame Christianity for the perceived environmental crisis, and some Christians to use it as an excuse to close their eyes to these issues. Henry Morris, Ph.D., (2002) of Institute for Creation Research, explains it this way:
This mandate implies a large population and every honorable occupation – science,
commerce, education, etc. This “dominion mandate” amounts in effect to a magnificent
divinely commissioned stewardship for man over God’s great creation – to understand its
processes and develop its resources to the glory of God and the good of men
(All Nations Under God, 2002).
Morris (1974) further explains that this command was “not a license for despotic exploitation of its [earth’s] resources, but rather a call to service, encouraging him [man] to understand its nature (“science”) and then to utilize its resources (“technology”) for the benefit of all men, under God,” (Creation and the Environment, 1974). God wants his children to be good stewards of his world by learning about it, exploring it, and using it for the good of mankind through the processes of preservation, restoration, and improvement.
A good example of species preservation can be found in the Jewish Torah (the Christian Pentateuch) which contains a law that prohibits the people of Israel from killing both the mother bird and her eggs. They were allowed to eat the eggs, but were to leave the mother in order to allow continuation of the species (Troster, n.d.). According to a recent blog by Carmi (2010), Jewish writings also teach avoidance of recreational hunting, but permit killing animals for food and commerce. Jews are also taught to avoid wasteful destruction of the environment, such as chopping down fruit trees, even when in a time of war (Troster, n.d.). They were also to prevent the pollution of water sources by keeping human excrement away from drinking water sources (Hunter, n.d.), and to keep an undeveloped area of suburbia surrounding each city (Numbers 35:4). A major theme of Old Testament Biblical environmental guidelines is to avoid the wasteful exploitation and destruction of God’s creation.
Humankind lives in a fallen world, and consequently, there are times when preservation will fail. Genesis chapter seven gives a beautiful picture of restoration. The entire world was corrupt and polluted with sin, and had been destroyed with a catastrophic flood. God commanded Noah to load the ark with every kind of animal on the planet. First of all, God’s love is portrayed for all of his creatures as he ensures the continuation of all that he has made, but a man and his family are observed as bringing these animals back to a devastated planet as God’s commissioned care-takers, restoring the balance of nature. God also instituted the Sabbath rest, requiring that his people not plant their fields every seventh year. “Thus, the sabbath year is given to protect the land from relentless exploitation, to help the land rejuvenate, to help it get things together again; it is a time of rest and restoration,” says Dr. Calvin De Witt (De Witt, 2002).
Creation itself cannot be improved upon, as God Himself declared that it was good (Genesis 1); however, as sin, environmental decay, pollutants, and man’s mishandling of their God-given mandate affects the earth, not only will there be the need for restoration, but there will be the opportunity for improvement as well. The Bible is rich with examples of digging wells, thus bringing irrigation not only to people but to animals and crops as well. God was the first to improve the earth by planting a garden, and every time man plants and cultivates the earth we are improving the health and beauty of our planet.
Finally, as proper stewardship is exercised over our world, there is a responsibility to seek out knowledge that will improve life for humankind. Just as Adam named the animals on those first days following creation, so people should discover and classify the varieties of species today. Not only is it wise to keep a record of the Master’s holdings – a good steward develops and multiplies the goods entrusted to him – but many helpful technologies, medications, and tools can be developed from nature. Although human beings are not to selfishly consume all that is under their dominion, they are allowed to advance and better the lives of the people of the world.
Through preservation, restoration, and improvement, Christians can be environmentalists without becoming political activists, or forsaking God to worship nature. These principles are Biblical principles, and when maintained in balance with the Christian priority of reaching the world with the gospel of Christ Jesus, there is no conflict. In fact, as we care for our environment as good stewards, we will have one more way that we can show the love of Christ.
References
Carmi. (2010, March 10). Jews in shtreimels (fur hats) and fur coats? Sanhedrin 15B. Retrieved
from Judaism and the Environment in the Talmud: Message posted to
http://svivaisrael.wordpress.com/
De Witt, D. C. (2002, July 14). Three Biblical principles for environmental stewardship.
Retrieved from Leadership University:
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/environment.html
Envionmentalism. (2010). Retrieved May 13, 2010, In Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/environmentalism
Hunter, P. (n.d.). The modern environmental movement: Jewish perspectives. Retrieved from
adherents.com: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/jew_env.html
Morris, P. H. (1974, April 1). Creation and the environment. Retrieved from Institution for
Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/article/creation-environment/
Morris, P. H. (2002, October 1). All nations under God. Retrieved from Institute for Creation
Research: http://www.icr.org/article/all-nations-under-god/
Troster, R. L. (n.d.). Ten Jewish teachings on Judaism and environmentalism. Retrieved from
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life: http://www.coejl.org/learn/je_tenje.php
Outline
I. Introduction
A. Definition of environmentalism
B. If this describes the Christian’s role, what should Christians do
C. Not a black and white issue
D. Thesis: Christians are to be good stewards of the earth
II. What stewardship looks like
A. The first Biblical commands
B. Reproduce, subdue, dominion
C. Serve and keep
D. Morris quote, what dominion is
E. Morris quote, what dominion is not
F. Stewardship is preservation, restoration and improvement
III. Preservation – Jewish Torah examples
A. Killing mother bird and eggs
B. Recreational hunting
C. Chopping down fruit trees
D. Prevent water pollution
E. Undeveloped suburbs around cities
IV. Restoration
A. Noah as God’s care-taker
B. Sabbath year of rest for the land
V. Improvement
A. Creation cannot be improved upon
B. Biblical example of digging wells
C. Biblical example of planting and cultivating
VI. Responsibility to seek out knowledge
A. Discover and classify species
B. Develop technology, medication, tools
C. Use nature to better humankind
VII. Conclusion
A. Christians can be environmentalists
B. Biblical principles
C. Maintain balance with gospel priority
D. Care for environment as good stewards
Rebecca Dennison
Liberty University
Abstract
There is much debate among Christians as to whether or not they should be involved in environmental causes, and great confusion surrounds the Biblical command to have dominion over the earth. Using the definition of environmentalism, and comparing Scriptural examples, this essay shows that Christians are to be good stewards of the earth. From this premise develops the understanding that stewardship and environmentalism, when boiled down to their basics, are definitively similar. It is a Christian responsibility to care for and learn about God’s creation for the betterment of humankind.
Good Stewardship
Merriam-Webster defines environmentalism as “advocacy of the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment; especially the movement to control pollution” (2010). Does that describe a part of the Christian’s role here on earth? And if so, what exactly should a Christian be doing to preserve and restore our planet? Many would say that this is a black and white issue; Christians should either be actively involved in ecological political arenas, or they should turn their backs upon this ‘pagan’ movement that only leads to Mother Earth worship and focus entirely on the eternal. But for Christians, this is not an either-or issue. The answer lies somewhere in the middle and can be found neatly placed within the pages of Scripture: Christians are to be good stewards of the earth.
In order to get an understanding of what stewardship looks like, it is necessary to look at the earliest commands that God gave to man. In Genesis, the first man and woman are commanded to reproduce and fill the earth with the human race, to subdue the earth, and to have dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26). They are also told to serve and keep the garden in which they live (Genesis 2:15). There has been much confusion over what it actually means to have dominion over the earth, and in fact, a gross misunderstanding of these terms has led some non-Christians to blame Christianity for the perceived environmental crisis, and some Christians to use it as an excuse to close their eyes to these issues. Henry Morris, Ph.D., (2002) of Institute for Creation Research, explains it this way:
This mandate implies a large population and every honorable occupation – science,
commerce, education, etc. This “dominion mandate” amounts in effect to a magnificent
divinely commissioned stewardship for man over God’s great creation – to understand its
processes and develop its resources to the glory of God and the good of men
(All Nations Under God, 2002).
Morris (1974) further explains that this command was “not a license for despotic exploitation of its [earth’s] resources, but rather a call to service, encouraging him [man] to understand its nature (“science”) and then to utilize its resources (“technology”) for the benefit of all men, under God,” (Creation and the Environment, 1974). God wants his children to be good stewards of his world by learning about it, exploring it, and using it for the good of mankind through the processes of preservation, restoration, and improvement.
A good example of species preservation can be found in the Jewish Torah (the Christian Pentateuch) which contains a law that prohibits the people of Israel from killing both the mother bird and her eggs. They were allowed to eat the eggs, but were to leave the mother in order to allow continuation of the species (Troster, n.d.). According to a recent blog by Carmi (2010), Jewish writings also teach avoidance of recreational hunting, but permit killing animals for food and commerce. Jews are also taught to avoid wasteful destruction of the environment, such as chopping down fruit trees, even when in a time of war (Troster, n.d.). They were also to prevent the pollution of water sources by keeping human excrement away from drinking water sources (Hunter, n.d.), and to keep an undeveloped area of suburbia surrounding each city (Numbers 35:4). A major theme of Old Testament Biblical environmental guidelines is to avoid the wasteful exploitation and destruction of God’s creation.
Humankind lives in a fallen world, and consequently, there are times when preservation will fail. Genesis chapter seven gives a beautiful picture of restoration. The entire world was corrupt and polluted with sin, and had been destroyed with a catastrophic flood. God commanded Noah to load the ark with every kind of animal on the planet. First of all, God’s love is portrayed for all of his creatures as he ensures the continuation of all that he has made, but a man and his family are observed as bringing these animals back to a devastated planet as God’s commissioned care-takers, restoring the balance of nature. God also instituted the Sabbath rest, requiring that his people not plant their fields every seventh year. “Thus, the sabbath year is given to protect the land from relentless exploitation, to help the land rejuvenate, to help it get things together again; it is a time of rest and restoration,” says Dr. Calvin De Witt (De Witt, 2002).
Creation itself cannot be improved upon, as God Himself declared that it was good (Genesis 1); however, as sin, environmental decay, pollutants, and man’s mishandling of their God-given mandate affects the earth, not only will there be the need for restoration, but there will be the opportunity for improvement as well. The Bible is rich with examples of digging wells, thus bringing irrigation not only to people but to animals and crops as well. God was the first to improve the earth by planting a garden, and every time man plants and cultivates the earth we are improving the health and beauty of our planet.
Finally, as proper stewardship is exercised over our world, there is a responsibility to seek out knowledge that will improve life for humankind. Just as Adam named the animals on those first days following creation, so people should discover and classify the varieties of species today. Not only is it wise to keep a record of the Master’s holdings – a good steward develops and multiplies the goods entrusted to him – but many helpful technologies, medications, and tools can be developed from nature. Although human beings are not to selfishly consume all that is under their dominion, they are allowed to advance and better the lives of the people of the world.
Through preservation, restoration, and improvement, Christians can be environmentalists without becoming political activists, or forsaking God to worship nature. These principles are Biblical principles, and when maintained in balance with the Christian priority of reaching the world with the gospel of Christ Jesus, there is no conflict. In fact, as we care for our environment as good stewards, we will have one more way that we can show the love of Christ.
References
Carmi. (2010, March 10). Jews in shtreimels (fur hats) and fur coats? Sanhedrin 15B. Retrieved
from Judaism and the Environment in the Talmud: Message posted to
http://svivaisrael.wordpress.com/
De Witt, D. C. (2002, July 14). Three Biblical principles for environmental stewardship.
Retrieved from Leadership University:
http://www.leaderu.com/theology/environment.html
Envionmentalism. (2010). Retrieved May 13, 2010, In Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/environmentalism
Hunter, P. (n.d.). The modern environmental movement: Jewish perspectives. Retrieved from
adherents.com: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/jew_env.html
Morris, P. H. (1974, April 1). Creation and the environment. Retrieved from Institution for
Creation Research: http://www.icr.org/article/creation-environment/
Morris, P. H. (2002, October 1). All nations under God. Retrieved from Institute for Creation
Research: http://www.icr.org/article/all-nations-under-god/
Troster, R. L. (n.d.). Ten Jewish teachings on Judaism and environmentalism. Retrieved from
Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life: http://www.coejl.org/learn/je_tenje.php
Outline
I. Introduction
A. Definition of environmentalism
B. If this describes the Christian’s role, what should Christians do
C. Not a black and white issue
D. Thesis: Christians are to be good stewards of the earth
II. What stewardship looks like
A. The first Biblical commands
B. Reproduce, subdue, dominion
C. Serve and keep
D. Morris quote, what dominion is
E. Morris quote, what dominion is not
F. Stewardship is preservation, restoration and improvement
III. Preservation – Jewish Torah examples
A. Killing mother bird and eggs
B. Recreational hunting
C. Chopping down fruit trees
D. Prevent water pollution
E. Undeveloped suburbs around cities
IV. Restoration
A. Noah as God’s care-taker
B. Sabbath year of rest for the land
V. Improvement
A. Creation cannot be improved upon
B. Biblical example of digging wells
C. Biblical example of planting and cultivating
VI. Responsibility to seek out knowledge
A. Discover and classify species
B. Develop technology, medication, tools
C. Use nature to better humankind
VII. Conclusion
A. Christians can be environmentalists
B. Biblical principles
C. Maintain balance with gospel priority
D. Care for environment as good stewards
Friday, May 7, 2010
Those Sneaky Advertising Geniuses!
Those Sneaky Advertising Geniuses!
Rebecca Dennison
Liberty University
Abstract
In this technological age, marketers are constantly developing new strategies to promote their products, with children often being the target of their advertisements. These commercials frequently advocate excessive, unhealthy lifestyles, presented in an entertaining format, that lead impressionable children to the conclusion that they desperately need that product. Unique opportunities are therefore increasingly available for American parents to teach their children the proper response to advertising and consumerism.
Those Sneaky Advertising Geniuses!
“Frosted flakes are more than good; they’re GRRRREAT!” exclaimed the author’s six-year-old son Aidan as he sat at the breakfast table one morning. What an endearing, funny little outburst! But in a country where children are a primary focus of national advertisement, parents are growing ever more concerned about the slogans, jingles, and images that are being planted in their children’s heads. Some would say that parents should attempt to remove every avenue of advertisement from the eyes and ears of their young ones; however, unique opportunities are increasingly available for parents to teach their children the proper response to advertising and consumerism.
From food and clothing to video games and toys, American youth are bombarded with commercial promotions. The television is not the only avenue by which advertisements reach children, marketing is everywhere: the internet, in schools, in movies, on buses and billboards, even on clothing. The average child will see approximately 40,000 commercials a year (Cantor, Dowrick, Kunkel, Linn, Palmer, & Wilcox, 2004). Though ads for children are not considered morally wrong, many of them encourage excess junk food consumption. According to CBS news, a study done in 2007 showed that “Children ages 2 to 7 see an average of 30 hours of such [junk food] ads a year. Kids 8 to 12 see 50 hours annually, while teenagers see 40 hours every year” (Cosgrove-Mather, 2007). A majority of the remaining child-targeted commercials promote consumerism, and only a few promote healthy behaviors and eating habits. Figure 1 demonstrates a breakdown of the types of food advertisers market to young people (2008).
While the goals of most marketing campaigns may be to promote awareness, preference, and loyalty to the brand (French & Story, 2004), children are not aware of these agendas. Per French and Story, in their article Food Advertising and Marketing Directed at Children and Adolescents in the US, “Prior to age 7 or 8 years, children tend to view advertising as fun, entertaining, and unbiased information” (French & Story, 2004). This view of advertisement as ‘just another cartoon’ is evidenced by the four-year-old Evan’s (the author’s child) loud protestations to switching the channel during a commercial, “Hey! I was watching that!” His mother explains to him that it is not a show, but he does not understand that. All he sees are children having fun and enjoying whatever product is currently being touted as the latest thing. Yet, subconsciously his mind is making the connections that he does indeed want the toy that looked like so much fun, and seconds later comes the plea, “Mommy, can I have that? I need it.” That reaction, called “The Nag Factor” (French & Story, 2004), is exactly what manufacturers count on.
Another way that marketing succeeds is by using children’s cartoon and super hero characters on toys and food products. Taking children to the supermarket these days is no easy feat. There are Sponge Bob, Spiderman, and Dora the Explorer characters around every corner. As an adult, it is understood that the box of macaroni and cheese does not taste any better just because there is a well-known figure on the box, but to a child, that food just became manna from heaven! What a sneaky trick of advertising genius!
On top of that are all the slogans, such as “Silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids!”, and jingles that are permanently stuck in children’s heads, and also admittedly in the heads of their parents (the author has caught herself singing the ‘Goldfish jingle’ on more than one occasion). Those six words about the Trix rabbit, in child-logic, say that rabbits eat carrots, and likewise Trix cereal is a food that should be included in every kid’s diet (See figure 2).
So what should parents do about this advertising mayhem, outside of disposing of their televisions, shutting down their internet, and in essence blindfolding their children every time they step foot outside the home? A recent blog posting by Flexo had some excellent recommendations for parents on dealing with advertising: view every advertisement as a teaching moment, talk to children about what the commercials are attempting to persuade them to buy, teach them to question the truth behind statements that are made about the brand, as well as, ask what the company does not say about it (Flexo, 2010). This blog adds, “If you put a value on being an informed consumer through your interactions with this material world, there’s a good chance your children ... will eventually see the value as well” (Flexo, 2010). The Federal Trade Commission has even created an interactive game, at admondo.gov, to assist parents in teaching children critical thinking skills in regards to advertisements, and to show them how to be good consumers.
From a Christian perspective, advertisements offer a wonderful opportunity to impart valuable spiritual lessons to children. Our consumer-driven society would have children value things of this world over the eternal things of God. Advertisers’ sly messages seem innocent, entertaining, and even funny at times, but they fill the children with materialistic ideas. It is not that the latest toys, or the newest breakfast cereal, are bad things, it’s just that those are not the things that the heart should long for. This is explained quite simply in Matthew 6:19-20 (English Standard Version), “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
The onslaught of advertising aimed at American youth shows no signs of slowing down, if anything it is growing. As technology advances, there will be increasing methods available to marketers for children’s commercials. There is reason for parents to be concerned, but they cannot hide from the inevitable -- kids will be exposed to these advertisements. Each and every ad that children hear or see is a potential learning moment. Parents need to be ready to discuss the content of commercials, and how they should respond to them, with their children, as well as to relate to them the blessings of choosing eternal things over the things of this world.
References
Cantor, P. J., Dowrick, P. P., Kunkel, P. D., Linn, E. S., Palmer, P. E., & Wilcox, P. B. (2004).
Psychological issues in the increasing commercialization of childhood. Advertising and
Children , 4. Retrieved from http://www.chawisconsin.org/Obesity/O2ChildAds.pdf
Cosgrove-Mather, B. (2007, March 28). Kids get diet of junk food commercials. CBS News.
Retrieved 2010, from:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/28/health/main2620036.shtml
Flexo. (2010, April 27). How to teach kids about advertising. Message posted to
http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2010/04/27/how-to-teach-kids-about
advertising/
Freedhoff, Y. (2008, April 8). Children’s junk food ad ban in Ontario? Message posted to
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2008/04/childrens-junk-food-ad-ban-in-ontario.html
French, S., & Story, M. (2004, February 10). Food advertising and marketing directed at
children and adolescents in the US. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity. Retrieved from: http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/1/1/3
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2008, Sepetember 16). Food for thought: Television food
advertising to children in the United States. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from
http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?ch=453
Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Rebecca Dennison
Liberty University
Abstract
In this technological age, marketers are constantly developing new strategies to promote their products, with children often being the target of their advertisements. These commercials frequently advocate excessive, unhealthy lifestyles, presented in an entertaining format, that lead impressionable children to the conclusion that they desperately need that product. Unique opportunities are therefore increasingly available for American parents to teach their children the proper response to advertising and consumerism.
Those Sneaky Advertising Geniuses!
“Frosted flakes are more than good; they’re GRRRREAT!” exclaimed the author’s six-year-old son Aidan as he sat at the breakfast table one morning. What an endearing, funny little outburst! But in a country where children are a primary focus of national advertisement, parents are growing ever more concerned about the slogans, jingles, and images that are being planted in their children’s heads. Some would say that parents should attempt to remove every avenue of advertisement from the eyes and ears of their young ones; however, unique opportunities are increasingly available for parents to teach their children the proper response to advertising and consumerism.
From food and clothing to video games and toys, American youth are bombarded with commercial promotions. The television is not the only avenue by which advertisements reach children, marketing is everywhere: the internet, in schools, in movies, on buses and billboards, even on clothing. The average child will see approximately 40,000 commercials a year (Cantor, Dowrick, Kunkel, Linn, Palmer, & Wilcox, 2004). Though ads for children are not considered morally wrong, many of them encourage excess junk food consumption. According to CBS news, a study done in 2007 showed that “Children ages 2 to 7 see an average of 30 hours of such [junk food] ads a year. Kids 8 to 12 see 50 hours annually, while teenagers see 40 hours every year” (Cosgrove-Mather, 2007). A majority of the remaining child-targeted commercials promote consumerism, and only a few promote healthy behaviors and eating habits. Figure 1 demonstrates a breakdown of the types of food advertisers market to young people (2008).
While the goals of most marketing campaigns may be to promote awareness, preference, and loyalty to the brand (French & Story, 2004), children are not aware of these agendas. Per French and Story, in their article Food Advertising and Marketing Directed at Children and Adolescents in the US, “Prior to age 7 or 8 years, children tend to view advertising as fun, entertaining, and unbiased information” (French & Story, 2004). This view of advertisement as ‘just another cartoon’ is evidenced by the four-year-old Evan’s (the author’s child) loud protestations to switching the channel during a commercial, “Hey! I was watching that!” His mother explains to him that it is not a show, but he does not understand that. All he sees are children having fun and enjoying whatever product is currently being touted as the latest thing. Yet, subconsciously his mind is making the connections that he does indeed want the toy that looked like so much fun, and seconds later comes the plea, “Mommy, can I have that? I need it.” That reaction, called “The Nag Factor” (French & Story, 2004), is exactly what manufacturers count on.
Another way that marketing succeeds is by using children’s cartoon and super hero characters on toys and food products. Taking children to the supermarket these days is no easy feat. There are Sponge Bob, Spiderman, and Dora the Explorer characters around every corner. As an adult, it is understood that the box of macaroni and cheese does not taste any better just because there is a well-known figure on the box, but to a child, that food just became manna from heaven! What a sneaky trick of advertising genius!
On top of that are all the slogans, such as “Silly Rabbit, Trix are for kids!”, and jingles that are permanently stuck in children’s heads, and also admittedly in the heads of their parents (the author has caught herself singing the ‘Goldfish jingle’ on more than one occasion). Those six words about the Trix rabbit, in child-logic, say that rabbits eat carrots, and likewise Trix cereal is a food that should be included in every kid’s diet (See figure 2).
So what should parents do about this advertising mayhem, outside of disposing of their televisions, shutting down their internet, and in essence blindfolding their children every time they step foot outside the home? A recent blog posting by Flexo had some excellent recommendations for parents on dealing with advertising: view every advertisement as a teaching moment, talk to children about what the commercials are attempting to persuade them to buy, teach them to question the truth behind statements that are made about the brand, as well as, ask what the company does not say about it (Flexo, 2010). This blog adds, “If you put a value on being an informed consumer through your interactions with this material world, there’s a good chance your children ... will eventually see the value as well” (Flexo, 2010). The Federal Trade Commission has even created an interactive game, at admondo.gov, to assist parents in teaching children critical thinking skills in regards to advertisements, and to show them how to be good consumers.
From a Christian perspective, advertisements offer a wonderful opportunity to impart valuable spiritual lessons to children. Our consumer-driven society would have children value things of this world over the eternal things of God. Advertisers’ sly messages seem innocent, entertaining, and even funny at times, but they fill the children with materialistic ideas. It is not that the latest toys, or the newest breakfast cereal, are bad things, it’s just that those are not the things that the heart should long for. This is explained quite simply in Matthew 6:19-20 (English Standard Version), “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
The onslaught of advertising aimed at American youth shows no signs of slowing down, if anything it is growing. As technology advances, there will be increasing methods available to marketers for children’s commercials. There is reason for parents to be concerned, but they cannot hide from the inevitable -- kids will be exposed to these advertisements. Each and every ad that children hear or see is a potential learning moment. Parents need to be ready to discuss the content of commercials, and how they should respond to them, with their children, as well as to relate to them the blessings of choosing eternal things over the things of this world.
References
Cantor, P. J., Dowrick, P. P., Kunkel, P. D., Linn, E. S., Palmer, P. E., & Wilcox, P. B. (2004).
Psychological issues in the increasing commercialization of childhood. Advertising and
Children , 4. Retrieved from http://www.chawisconsin.org/Obesity/O2ChildAds.pdf
Cosgrove-Mather, B. (2007, March 28). Kids get diet of junk food commercials. CBS News.
Retrieved 2010, from:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/28/health/main2620036.shtml
Flexo. (2010, April 27). How to teach kids about advertising. Message posted to
http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/2010/04/27/how-to-teach-kids-about
advertising/
Freedhoff, Y. (2008, April 8). Children’s junk food ad ban in Ontario? Message posted to
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2008/04/childrens-junk-food-ad-ban-in-ontario.html
French, S., & Story, M. (2004, February 10). Food advertising and marketing directed at
children and adolescents in the US. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity. Retrieved from: http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/1/1/3
Kaiser Family Foundation. (2008, Sepetember 16). Food for thought: Television food
advertising to children in the United States. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from
http://facts.kff.org/chart.aspx?ch=453
Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Robot Clone Generation
Abstract
Using Kohn’s article as a jumping off place, this narrative seeks to show that Christianity is not defined by how well one knows the Bible, any more than being well-educated is defined by a degree on the wall. Drawing on personal experience as a Baptist pastor’s daughter, and including a few Biblical examples, a plea is made to question the status quo and return to critical thinking skills as a means of rediscovering true Christianity: Christ.
Robot Clone Generation
Are we to be reduced to a society of people quoting intellectual facts, flaunting excellent test scores, and waving about advanced degrees yet devoid of any critical thinking skills? This state of affairs is not only the product of schools, but also of many of our churches. The world is churning out classrooms full of students who can cite their multiplication tables and geometry theorems, yet they know very little of practical everyday life. At the same rate, churches are churning out young people who spew scriptures and Bible facts without batting an eye, not having a clue about the practical essence of Christianity. Christianity is not defined by how well one knows the Bible, anymore than being well-educated is defined by a degree on the wall.
I, too, was afflicted with this malady of ‘fact-worship’ over critical thinking skills. I grew up in an environment where Biblical knowledge was the ultimate goal of every aspect of life. My brain was overloaded with scriptures and facts, ever ready to impress others with my Christian superiority. If someone asked me a question about the faith, I was always ready with an answer, just as Christians are supposed to be! I had the verse memorized: “…be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you...” (I Peter 3:15)
But wait, I could rattle off facts, and quote verses, but was I truly able to give a reason for what I believed? “There’s a big difference between knowing what something says and knowing what it means. Millions of Christians know what the Bible says. But many do not know what it means because that can only be revealed by the Spirit.” (George, 1989, p. 38) One of the major downfalls of ‘fact-based’ religion is the lack of understanding why one believes what they believe. I had become a pre-programmed robot clone identical to every other person I attended church with, simply regurgitating the facts and opinions of others. Just as Kohn referred to those who viewed the education system as a means of “reproducing our current culture” (2003, p. 4) and “preserving the status quo” (2003, p. 4), the religious circles I grew up in were very concerned that we all looked and sounded alike down to the very last detail.
This pursuit of conformity had terrible consequences. I was so busy seeking to excel at being an outstanding Christian that I missed Christ altogether. In memorizing more, I thought less; in thinking less, I avoided the true question inside my heart: “What does all this mean?” I had become just like the Jews that Paul described in Romans chapter two – they knew the Scriptures inside and out, yet were completely unable to save themselves. Even in the moments when I would admit to myself that there was a possibility that I did not really know this Jesus whom I had read all about, I could not dwell there. It was easier to maintain the semblance of mature Christianity than it was to exercise the mind by delving into deep personal introspection.
My personal story does have a happy ending. I married a man who knew on an intimate level that Christianity was a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. For the first time in my life, I was introduced to Christ as a very real, living person who dwells outside of the realms of religion, the God-man who was more than just a recorded gospel story. This Jesus loved me, not for whom I was affiliated with, what I looked like, or how much I knowledge I had, but for whom he created me to be. He made me with my own unique personality including all of my abilities, thinking processes and preferences. He designed me for a perfect role within the body of Christ. By reducing myself to a copy of another Christian, I was upsetting the perfect intention my Creator had for my life.
To those who still think that Bible knowledge and religious rules define Christianity, I ask you this: How much Bible knowledge do you need before you can be considered a mature Christian? “How familiar with it must you be?” (Kohn, 2003, p. 3) The Pharisees had the Old Testament memorized, yet they stood face-to-face with Jesus and had absolutely no idea who he was. The chief priests and scribes told Herod where Jesus would be born, (Matthew 2:4-6) yet they did not seek him out for themselves. Knowledge then cannot be an indicator of spirituality. Let us take a look at the disciples: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” (Acts 4:13) What was different between these men and the Pharisees? They had had a real encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ, not only as a man walking this earth, but as the Saviour of their souls. They knew him not only in name, but also as the Spirit dwelling inside of them in resurrection power. This is what made the difference in my own life between being a robotic clone of those around me, and being a Christian that causes people to say, “Wow! Something is different here!”
It is time for Christians to switch their brains to the ‘on’ position and consider that there is more to Christ than anything they have ever considered! Start asking questions about the things that you have always accepted as truth. Ask yourself where the evidence is to support it, how it is important to you, and why it is necessary to believe. (Kohn, 2003, p. 6) Let us prevent another generation of people who, like me, go through the same motions as their parents and their religious organizations, but never truly encounter Christ for themselves. Remember that true Christianity is not found in Biblical knowledge, but in Christ. I leave you with this thought, “If one’s understanding of Christianity is comprised only of assent to the objective facts, and devoid of the subjective personal relationship with Jesus Christ, can such a person be considered a Christian?” (Fowler, 2000)
References
Fowler, J. A. (2000). A personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Retrieved from
www.christinyou.net/pages/persrel.html
George, B. (1989). Classic christianity (p. 38). Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, INC.
Kohn, A. (2003). What does it mean to be well-educated. Principal Leadership. 4,6.
Retrieved from www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/welleducated.htm
Using Kohn’s article as a jumping off place, this narrative seeks to show that Christianity is not defined by how well one knows the Bible, any more than being well-educated is defined by a degree on the wall. Drawing on personal experience as a Baptist pastor’s daughter, and including a few Biblical examples, a plea is made to question the status quo and return to critical thinking skills as a means of rediscovering true Christianity: Christ.
Robot Clone Generation
Are we to be reduced to a society of people quoting intellectual facts, flaunting excellent test scores, and waving about advanced degrees yet devoid of any critical thinking skills? This state of affairs is not only the product of schools, but also of many of our churches. The world is churning out classrooms full of students who can cite their multiplication tables and geometry theorems, yet they know very little of practical everyday life. At the same rate, churches are churning out young people who spew scriptures and Bible facts without batting an eye, not having a clue about the practical essence of Christianity. Christianity is not defined by how well one knows the Bible, anymore than being well-educated is defined by a degree on the wall.
I, too, was afflicted with this malady of ‘fact-worship’ over critical thinking skills. I grew up in an environment where Biblical knowledge was the ultimate goal of every aspect of life. My brain was overloaded with scriptures and facts, ever ready to impress others with my Christian superiority. If someone asked me a question about the faith, I was always ready with an answer, just as Christians are supposed to be! I had the verse memorized: “…be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you...” (I Peter 3:15)
But wait, I could rattle off facts, and quote verses, but was I truly able to give a reason for what I believed? “There’s a big difference between knowing what something says and knowing what it means. Millions of Christians know what the Bible says. But many do not know what it means because that can only be revealed by the Spirit.” (George, 1989, p. 38) One of the major downfalls of ‘fact-based’ religion is the lack of understanding why one believes what they believe. I had become a pre-programmed robot clone identical to every other person I attended church with, simply regurgitating the facts and opinions of others. Just as Kohn referred to those who viewed the education system as a means of “reproducing our current culture” (2003, p. 4) and “preserving the status quo” (2003, p. 4), the religious circles I grew up in were very concerned that we all looked and sounded alike down to the very last detail.
This pursuit of conformity had terrible consequences. I was so busy seeking to excel at being an outstanding Christian that I missed Christ altogether. In memorizing more, I thought less; in thinking less, I avoided the true question inside my heart: “What does all this mean?” I had become just like the Jews that Paul described in Romans chapter two – they knew the Scriptures inside and out, yet were completely unable to save themselves. Even in the moments when I would admit to myself that there was a possibility that I did not really know this Jesus whom I had read all about, I could not dwell there. It was easier to maintain the semblance of mature Christianity than it was to exercise the mind by delving into deep personal introspection.
My personal story does have a happy ending. I married a man who knew on an intimate level that Christianity was a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. For the first time in my life, I was introduced to Christ as a very real, living person who dwells outside of the realms of religion, the God-man who was more than just a recorded gospel story. This Jesus loved me, not for whom I was affiliated with, what I looked like, or how much I knowledge I had, but for whom he created me to be. He made me with my own unique personality including all of my abilities, thinking processes and preferences. He designed me for a perfect role within the body of Christ. By reducing myself to a copy of another Christian, I was upsetting the perfect intention my Creator had for my life.
To those who still think that Bible knowledge and religious rules define Christianity, I ask you this: How much Bible knowledge do you need before you can be considered a mature Christian? “How familiar with it must you be?” (Kohn, 2003, p. 3) The Pharisees had the Old Testament memorized, yet they stood face-to-face with Jesus and had absolutely no idea who he was. The chief priests and scribes told Herod where Jesus would be born, (Matthew 2:4-6) yet they did not seek him out for themselves. Knowledge then cannot be an indicator of spirituality. Let us take a look at the disciples: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” (Acts 4:13) What was different between these men and the Pharisees? They had had a real encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ, not only as a man walking this earth, but as the Saviour of their souls. They knew him not only in name, but also as the Spirit dwelling inside of them in resurrection power. This is what made the difference in my own life between being a robotic clone of those around me, and being a Christian that causes people to say, “Wow! Something is different here!”
It is time for Christians to switch their brains to the ‘on’ position and consider that there is more to Christ than anything they have ever considered! Start asking questions about the things that you have always accepted as truth. Ask yourself where the evidence is to support it, how it is important to you, and why it is necessary to believe. (Kohn, 2003, p. 6) Let us prevent another generation of people who, like me, go through the same motions as their parents and their religious organizations, but never truly encounter Christ for themselves. Remember that true Christianity is not found in Biblical knowledge, but in Christ. I leave you with this thought, “If one’s understanding of Christianity is comprised only of assent to the objective facts, and devoid of the subjective personal relationship with Jesus Christ, can such a person be considered a Christian?” (Fowler, 2000)
References
Fowler, J. A. (2000). A personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Retrieved from
www.christinyou.net/pages/persrel.html
George, B. (1989). Classic christianity (p. 38). Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, INC.
Kohn, A. (2003). What does it mean to be well-educated. Principal Leadership. 4,6.
Retrieved from www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/welleducated.htm
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Forum 3, GEED 101
The adult learning theory that stood out to me the most was critical reflection. I do not believe this is a learning theory that pertains only to adults, as children also have the capacity to question and choose to change. However, the difference is that they are limited by parental authority. I always questioned everything I was taught, but I was afraid to voice these questions to find answers. Those questions that I did ask were shut down with the typical response of 'that is just the way we believe.' This did not stop me from seeking answers elsewhere, but it did prevent me from acting upon what I found. As an adult, it does not get that much easier; parental authority is replaced with social peer pressure. It is easier to go along with the status quo than to question and choose a minority view point, yet as adults we are responsible for our own choices. We do not answer to anyone but God.
This is important to realize. A healthy human being must take the things they have learned and decide what is truth and what is not; to become an individual with opinions and beliefs aside from what they have always known. The most difficult part of this is to choose to not only hold to these new ideas but to act upon them. And we should act upon them! The Bible states, 'to whom much has been given much shall be required.'
It is wonderful to obtain an awareness of the psychological processes I have gone through to become the individual I am today. What an excellent reminder that as an adult who is learning and growing, both in my regular life and as a student at Liberty University Online, I should not only be asking questions and forming opinions, but also choosing to take a stand for what I believe. This applies to both secular learning and Christian learning. Every bit of knowledge that I have is a gift that should be critically assessed and then either applied or discarded. Just because I hold something to be true does not make it right. I must always be ready to admit a flaw in my belief system, as well as to know what I know so well that I can convince someone else of it. Critical reflection has given me new understanding of my responsibilities as I learn both in and out of school.
This is important to realize. A healthy human being must take the things they have learned and decide what is truth and what is not; to become an individual with opinions and beliefs aside from what they have always known. The most difficult part of this is to choose to not only hold to these new ideas but to act upon them. And we should act upon them! The Bible states, 'to whom much has been given much shall be required.'
It is wonderful to obtain an awareness of the psychological processes I have gone through to become the individual I am today. What an excellent reminder that as an adult who is learning and growing, both in my regular life and as a student at Liberty University Online, I should not only be asking questions and forming opinions, but also choosing to take a stand for what I believe. This applies to both secular learning and Christian learning. Every bit of knowledge that I have is a gift that should be critically assessed and then either applied or discarded. Just because I hold something to be true does not make it right. I must always be ready to admit a flaw in my belief system, as well as to know what I know so well that I can convince someone else of it. Critical reflection has given me new understanding of my responsibilities as I learn both in and out of school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
