The Caucasian Chalk Circle Essay Example

The Caucasian Chalk Circle Essay Research investigation: What Verfremdungs Effekts does Brecht script in Caucasian Chalk Circle and how effective are these techniques in the dramatic movement of transformation? United World College in Mostar Student: Selmir Klicic Teacher: Melissa Ann Reed Subject: Theater Block: E First factor I would like to mention when it comes to this kind of topic is audience. The audience was always to big extent demanding for an author and a director to send the message throughout a work of art, a theater play which would be understood in proper way. Mostly concerning this problem, world’s biggest play writers developed a theory being practiced in their plays in order for better understanding of the idea by the audience. One of these theories is today called Verfremdungs Effekt or alienation effect. This significant influence was initiated by Shakespeare at first, who, using his drama plays applied V – effect for better understanding of his, usually very complicated plot. The theory kept being developed since it was first invented. A person who contributed to development of V – effect the most was Bertolt Brecht by inventing a completely new type of theater, nowdays called Brechtian Theater. His contribution was mostly based on Shakespeares theory, and it was just used as a pose and strategy to bring about the change by engaging the imagination and creative critisism. „We need a type of theatre which not only releases the feelings, insights and impulses possible within the particular historical field of human relations in which the action takes place, but employs and encourages those thoughts and feelings which help t ransform the field itself. – Brecht From the quote above we could conclude that what was important for Brecht wasnt the fiction actors would make by their performance, but the message that is contained in plot. As an example of this theory, and as my research investigation task I will take Brechts play Caucasian Chalk Circle, as well as the goal of this essay would be based on the same play. The actual goal of the research investigation is to conclude how Verfremdungs Effekt contributes to the undestranding of the idea and message being sent by the play. We will write a custom essay sample on The Caucasian Chalk Circle specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on The Caucasian Chalk Circle specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on The Caucasian Chalk Circle specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer As it would be too long to analyze a complete piece, my research will be based on one scene from Caucasian Chalk Circle. The certain scene is the one in which two mothers are fighting about a child just like two farmers are fighting about the land. By this scene it would be possible to present the idea of emphasizing the important issues of society Brecht was trying to make us be aware of. The method that I am planning to use in the experiment is performing this scene in front of the audience two times. First time it would be without using V – effect and the second time should be performed with it. The significant thing is the reaction of audience and their opinion, as long as the research investigation is based on proper understanding of idealism being contained in a drama piece, for which audience is vital. To know the understanding of the audience I should ask questions concerning their perception of the plot. So the questions should take under the consideration both parts of the experiment. Knowing that the audience is more or less educated and familiar with the idea of V – effect, question should be prescribed as simple. 1. According to you, what was the idea of this scene? (this question should be asked after performing the first part, which has no V – effect in its performance) 2. What kind of the impression do the characters leave on you by their act in the first part, and what kind of the impression do they leave in second part? 3. Did V – effect change your understanding and prescription in second scene? If yes, please evaluate. I think that a conclusion could be properly finalized after these questions answered by the audience, are analyzed afterwards.

An Inspector Calls Essay Example

An Inspector Calls Essay Example An Inspector Calls Essay An Inspector Calls Essay Essay Topic: Literature An Inspector Calls is a murder mystery written in the form of a play set in 1912 and is written by J. B. Priestly. It revolves around one family of a high social status the Birlings. The play begins with the family celebrating the engagement of their daughter, Sheila, to a man called Gerald Croft. Their celebration is interrupted by a call from an Inspector, making inquiries about a young girl called Eva Smith who has just died from swallowing a large amount of disinfectant. The Inspector then begins to question each member of the family to uncover their part in Evas death. Priestly uses each character, including the Inspector, to teach the audience very important life lessons both individual and collective responsibility. An Inspector Calls has been called a modern day morality play because Priestly uses his characters to represent the many different people in the world and tries to bring them all together in a family unit to teach them a very important lesson. The lessons learnt can be applied to everyones daily life, regardless of their status/situation and the lesson is one of moral values. This lesson is learnt through the Inspector and Priestly reinforces his main message through the layout and language of the play e. g. the dramatic irony, plain irony and varied characters making sure that everyone can identify to at least one and perhaps learn a lesson from them. Priestlys main theme of the play is that we are all responsible for each other and we all have to think about our actions and what effect they will have on others. This is shown mainly through the parts that each family member play in the death of Eva Smith. Although not entirely to blame, each family member in some way contributed to her death. Even Gerald, one who is not yet in this family, was entwined in a web of immoral behaviour and deceit. Priestly uses each member of the family to represent characters in society. It is in this way that he attempts to enforce the message of responsibility because one is able to identify with at least one character or see it from their point of view. He chooses a family of high social status to bring about another important theme high social status does not necessarily equal good moral and ethical values. The Birlings represent one such family. Mr Birling is used to represent an upper class head of the family, whose main philosophy on life is that a man has to mind his own business and look after himself. The very fact that Birling believes one must look after himself is in complete contrast with the theme of the play collective responsibility. Priestly uses this contrast to teach Birling a lesson and to show the audience how wrong he is which will in turn prove the latter theory. Birling is also particularly preoccupied with social status. He is very conscious of the fact that people have an opinion of him and his family and that social status equals respect within the community. Any threat to his and his familys reputation must be quickly dealt with and covered up. This is shown clearly from his statement Ive got to cover this up as soon as I can in reference to the fact that it has emerged that his son, Eric, has stolen a considerable amount of money form his account. This is also in some way connected to another one of Priestlys themes social status does not equal good morals Eric stealing money, especially from his father. Also, when it is revealed that Mrs Birling too played a part in Evas part, a part that was cruel and malicious, Mr Birling does not seem to even acknowledge what she did was wrong in the slightest. His only words on the matter are, when this comes out at the inquest it isnt going to do us much good. The Press might easily take it up The part in which Birling played in Evas death is the fact that, after a dispute over wages (Eva and various other girls working in the factory wanted a small yet significant pay rise), Birling fired her leaving her penniless and homeless. Birling refuses to accept any responsibility in Evas death because he is not able to see how his firing her could in any way cause her death. The Inspector answers with the following, What happened to her then may have determined what happened to her afterwards, and what happened to her afterwards may have driven her to suicide. A chain of events. This statement sums up all of the familys involvement in her death they were all responsible in part and all contributed to her suicide. Upon hearing this Birling adds some more philosophy Still I cant accept responsibility. If we were all responsible for everything that happened to everybody wed had anything to do with, it would be very awkward. The last part of his philosophy, it would be very awkward wouldnt it, shows that not only can he not see how he contributed to her death (evident from the whole of his speech) but he finds it quite difficult to take responsibility for anything. He is simply not bothered in what happens to others. This shows how difficult it has become for him to accept those of lower status than himself (he thinks of Eva as just another girl who comes under the heading of cheap labour whom he is able to exploit). Even after the rest of the family is questioned and it becomes clear that his sacking of Eva did play, however small, some part in her death, he is unable to accept responsibility. The Inspector later questions Sheila and it emerges that she too played a part in Evas death. After two months of desperation, without work and unable to buy food or pay for accommodation, Eva changed her name to Daisy Renton and managed to acquire a position in a shop called Millwards. Her run of bad luck did not end here. She then got fired from this shop because Sheila got her fired. Sheila was shopping with her mother in Millwards where Daisy worked and, against the advice of her mother and the assistant, tried on a dress, which did not suit her. Sheila thought that she caught sight of the assistant and Daisy smiling at each other in the mirror as if to say doesnt she look awful. Sheila was very embarrassed by this but what made it worse was the fact that when Eva held the dress up to herself it suited her very well. Sheila also says she was very pretty too with big dark eyes which didnt make it any better. This proves that Sheila was very jealous of Daisy, and in her rage she went to tell the manager that if they didnt get rid of the girl, Id never go near the place again and Id persuade mother to close the account with them. Daisy therefore lost her job on account of Sheilas jealousy and anger. This is an example used by Priestly to demonstrate another theme. He is beginning to show that people who are of higher social status, e. g. the Birlings, are far more influential than those of a lower social class but this is not necessarily a good thing. Sheila used her high status to get Eva fired but Eva did not deserve it. The Inspector comments on this with the statement, You used the power you had, as the daughter of as good customer and a man well known in the town, to punish this girl just because she made you feel like that. Sheila later concedes and feels extremely guilty about the fact that she did indeed contribute to Evas death. Erics character is used by Priestly to show that people of a high social status do not necessarily have the correct morals. Erics part in Evas death is in some ways more prominent than either Sheilas or Mr Birlings. After being fired from Millwards, Eva, with no other choice, seemingly acquired the position as a prostitute. When it is mentioned later, in the presence of Mrs Birling, that Alderman Heggarty, someone who is thought of as being of high social class was seen at the Palace Bar, Mrs Birling is very shocked perhaps suggesting that it is not a very respectable place so why would a seemingly respectable man be seen there? Eric refers to Eva as not being the usual sort with reference to the people that went to the Palace Bar. He says that he supposes she didnt know what else to do, implying already that Eva was in such a desperate situation possibly caused by Mr Birling, Sheila and Gerald. Eric is considerably drunk at the bar (something which were learn from Sheila is not uncommon) and later that evening, after buying her several drinks, sleeps with Eva. He returns to the Palace Bar on another occasion and again sleeps with Eva. He refers to her as a good sport but not someone whom he truly cared for. He treated Eva as an object. Eva later found out that she was pregnant and told Eric about it. Eric proposed marriage but Eva refused on the grounds that she knew that Eric did not really care for here. Eva had no job and did not know what she was going to do. Eric insisted on giving her money, which he stole from his father, and eventually Eva refused to take anymore after she found out it was stolen. They never saw each other again. Eric is used also as a contrast with Eva. Priestly depicts two people, both from different backgrounds and of very different social status, and both with very different morals. One expects the person from a high social status to have very good morals and to be an upstanding citizen. It is in fact the opposite in this situation. Eric gets drunk a lot and frequents places, which are deemed inappropriate to those of high social status (see Mrs Birlings comment above). He presumably sleeps with many women whom he does not care about and, although his intentions were good, steals from his father. Eva on the other hand, someone of a low social status, is the one who has the better morals. As soon as she finds out that Eric stole the money she refuses to take anymore. Unlike many girls in her situation she tries to make the best of her lot, she tries to get help. This proves that you cant trust what is on the surface and it proves Priestlys idea that status does not equal morals. Eva seeks help from the Brumley Womens Charity Organisation, a charity set up to help the unemployed, homeless or ill. Money was given to deserving causes. Mrs Birling is the chair of the charity. Charities such as the BWCO had to be set up because at that time in Britain (1912) people had no Welfare State to rely on as they do today. Theses charities were the only help available. Mrs Birling was approached by Eva who asked her for help because she was homeless, penniless and pregnant. Mrs Birling refused. She was annoyed at Evas refusal to tell the name of the father (who happened to be Mrs Birlings son, Eric) and at her gross impertinence which was quite deliberate. Eva called herself Mrs Birling. Mrs Birling admits that it was her influence that got Evas case refused. Mrs Birling simply did not like her impertinence or manner. She says that she is not ashamed of her behaviour and does not feel that she has done anything wrong. This is surely not true as she hid the fact that she knew Eva and only admitting knowing her after much pressure from Sheila. Mrs Birling is used to again show that people of a high social status do not necessarily have the correct morals, and like, Sheila, used her influence to get Evas case refused. Although they both contributed to Evas death in similar ways, Sheila is quick to admit she is wrong and feels extremely guilty whereas Mrs Birling feels absolutely no compassion or remorse. She states, she was claiming elaborate fine feelings and scruples that were simply absurd in a girl in her positions and I dont suppose for a moment that we can understand why the girl committed suicide. Girl of that class Both the endings of these two statements show that Mrs Birling has absolutely no compassion and is simply not bothered with those of a lower class. When asked by the Inspector who she blamed, she says not only the girl but also the father. Mrs Birling is very naive and acts quite idiotically as she implicates Eric. Sheila and the Inspector both realise this, clear from where Sheila begs her mother to stop. Mrs Birling does not realise that by the way she is talking she is getting her son into more and more trouble. This is one of various occasions where Priestly uses dramatic irony. We, the audience, realise the full impact of Mrs Birlings speech and how she is unknowingly convicting her own son. Dramatic Impact is used at the end of Mrs Birlings speech, at the end of Act Two, which ends with Eric entering the house and both the Inspector and Sheila, as well as Mrs Birling, looking apprehensively towards the door as Sheila begs her mother to keep quiet. Later on, after the departure of the inspector, Mrs Birling claims that she was not fooled by the inspector and did not succumb to his ability to draw out information, which is a blatant lie. The Birlings son, Eric, is used by Priestly to show two main themes of An Inspector Calls. Eric shows, through sleeping with Eva because she was a good sport and through stealing money, that people of a high social class do not necessarily have the better morals. We can also see from the different morals of Eva and Eric she not accepting stolen money that a lower social class does not equal worse morals and visa versa (according to Mrs Birling and public opinion Eva have worse morals) and Eva has in fact got better morals than Eric! It also shows how dysfunctional the Birling family actually is: a family with such a high social status and an abundance of wealth does not equal good family life. Mr and Mrs Birling were totally oblivious to Erics drinking problem as well as his social exploits. Eric could not even go to his father for help in his time of trouble. When Mr Birling asks him why he did not come to him for help he replies, Because youre not the kind of father a chap could go to when hes in trouble thats why. He also says to his mother, You dont understand anything. You never did. You never even tried. Priestly uses dramatic tension in this part of the play to show just how separate the family is. We even see Mrs Birling displaying some signs of distress, something quite unusual for her. Eric, nearly at breaking point, accuses Mrs Birling of killing Eva and killing her own grandchild. Mrs Birling cannot bear to hear this and tells Eric, in her desperation, that she did not know, she didnt understand. This is perhaps why towards the end of the play we can see a clear divide between the children and the parents. Mr and Mrs Birling have a problem facing up to their responsibility and cannot bear to hear they were wrong. This can be seen from the way in which Mr and Mrs Birling try to silence Eric and especially Sheila when they talk about assigning blame and guilt. Eric is used in conjunction with Sheila to show a further theme of the play how opinions of the young and old can also be incorrect. After the inspector leaves, the audience is left to see who will actually take heed of his warnings and listen to his very important message. It is, in fact, Eric and Sheila, not Mr and Mrs Birling who learn a lesson. They are shocked at their parents blatant disregard of the blame for Evas death. Immediately after the departure of the Inspector, Eric has an argument with his parents. Mr Birling is furious with Eric because he has caused a public scandal and therefore most probably ruined his chances of a knighthood. He is not annoyed with Eric over his treatment of Eva; after all that has gone on his social status is still his main priority. Eric replies by saying that the knighthood is not important and that he too is ashamed of his parents. Mr Birling says that there is every excuse for what both your mother and I did. Sheila cannot believe this response. She intervenes and says that she knows she behaved badly and she is ashamed of it but now her parents are acting as if nothing has happened. This shows Sheilas maturity and her willingness to learn from what occurred. It is quite clear that neither Mr nor Mrs Birling has taken a lesson from what has gone on. In fact Mr Birling says nothing muc h has happened. How can he not realise that he was to blame in some way for Evas death and see that it is his jaded outlook on life that has caused it? This not only shows the moral difference between the children and the parents but a distinct difference between young and old. It would normally have been thought that the older generation would learn more and not the children but this shows it is the opposite and that perhaps hope for the future rests on the younger generation. The Inspector is one of the most important characters in the play, with regards to conveying the message of both individual and collective responsibility. His role is to examine what really goes on behind the apparent respectability of the middle/high class prosperity; behind the fai de they are uncaring and corrupt. The Inspector can be seen as either a figment of the familys imagination, perhaps a culmination of all of their fears combined (social disgrace, the assignation of blame), hence the name Goole a play on the word ghoul, meaning ghost or phantom. He is there to test their conscience, or as someone, who although is not a real inspector, is there to show them that they are acting in an irresponsible and immoral way. Either way, the inspector is able to cunningly entice all of the information from the other characters, which is necessary to implicate them in the death of Eva Smith. From the moment the Inspector entered the Birling house the atmosphere changed he creates an impression of massiveness, solidity and purposefulness he speaks carefully, weightily, and has a disconcerting habit of looking hard at the person he addressed before actually speaking. The Inspector is used by Priestly to represent the voice of conscience in us all. He strikes the Birlings individually and is also connected with the mystery of time recurrence Time present and time past are both perhaps present in time future and time future contained in past. This quote by T. S Eliot is prominent in the play itself and is demonstrated by the Inspector who shows that all of our actions whether in the past or in present time in some way help to shape our future or in fact our present. The actions of all of the Birling family, actions which took place in the past time, have now contributed to their future the Inspector coming, the possible realisation that they have done something wrong, the social implications. The Inspector has as much of an impact on the audience as he does on the Birlings themselves. This is especially with regards to his final speech before he leaves the Birlings. He has just shown each character that they were in some way to blame for the death of Eva Smith and now, before leaving, makes a final speech, which incorporates all of the lessons they should have learnt. In his speech the Inspector mentions each of the characters in turn, redefining their role in the death. He seems to be less harsh towards Sheila perhaps because of her evident shame and despair at what she has done. The last part of the Inspectors final speech is formidable and forbidding. A lot of repetition is used to reinforce the message that we are all responsible for each other regardless of social class/status. He says quite clearly that although one Eva Smith has gone there are millions of Eva Smiths and John Smiths left with us, with their lives, their hopes and fears, their suffering and chance of happiness, all intertwined with our lives, and what we think and say and do. We dont live alone. We are members of one body. We are responsible for each other. And I tell you that the time will soon come when, if men will not learn that lesson, they will be taught it in fire and blood and anguish. This last sentence is in reference to First World War, which Priestly experienced. The Inspectors message is a symbol of the general need for society to avoid being too satisfied and unaware of other peoples hardships and to act against future disaster e. g. WW1, brought on by arrogance, greed and indifference towards others. After this dramatic speech, perhaps the most dramatic in the play, the Inspector leaves the Birling house. The audience are left with a sense of fear and realisation at what the Inspector has just said and also with suspense to see whether the characters have learnt their lesson. It is clear immediately after the Inspector leaves that Mr and Mrs Birling have missed the whole point of the Inspectors visit. They are still preoccupied with social status: Mr Birling comments to Eric that theyll be a public scandal. Sheila is quick to assign blame to herself showing that she has taken on board what the Inspector has said. Eric launches into an attack on both his parents saying that they are as much to blame as anyone, and he too is ashamed of his own behaviour. Soon there is heated tension this heated tension within the household that shows both a clear divide between parents and children, perhaps the difference between young and old and the ability to accept change and that they have done something wrong. It also shows that with all of the revelations everything has changed relationships have been turned upside down and the children feel that it is not necessary to show such a great respect for their parents anymore. Instead of focusing on the tragedy, they blame each other. Although the children do accept what they have done wrong, the tendency to assign blame shows that they have not fully understood what needs to be changed. This is especially prominent with Eric.

Transformational leadership highlights the importance of trait theory Assignment

Transformational leadership highlights the importance of trait theory Critically evaluate the trait theory of leadersip and how - Assignment Example The two earliest approaches that explained leadership were the trait and behavioural theories. The trait theories emphasised on identifying and fostering the personal traits that distinguished a leader whereas behavioural theorists stressed on maintaining various sorts of leader behaviours. No doubt, both these theories are capable of offering fresh insights to current and future managers in leading their organizations or companies. One can trace back the origins of all modern popular leadership styles (such as charismatic, transformational and transactional leadership styles) in the trait theory. This paper deals with the various aspects of trait theory, its advantages and disadvantages and tries to make a probe into the relevance of the theory today. One should have a thorough understanding of the meaning and definition of trait theory to evaluate its relevance. Trait theory, in short, â€Å"attempts to specify which personal characteristics (physical, personality, mental) are ass ociated with leadership effectiveness† (Duening & Ivancevich 2003, p. 282). Kinicki and Kreitner in this respect, consider the trait theory as the successor to the â€Å"great man† theory of leadership. However, one can find considerable differences between both the theories. While the ‘great man’ theory held that leaders have an inborn talent to lead, â€Å"trait theorists believed that leadership traits were not innate but could be developed through experience and learning† (Kinicki & Kreitner 2009, p. 461-462). Thus, the theory emphasises that not all leaders are born leaders and that leadership abilities can be acquired by anyone. The trait theorists also hold that good leaders possess certain physical or personality characteristics known as ‘leader traits’ which distinguish them from their followers. There have been a number of studies during the post war period to identify these leadership traits that differentiated a leader from h is/her followers. In this regard, Stogdill and Mann stressed on five leadership traits that differentiated leaders from average followers. They include intelligence, dominance, self-confidence, level of energy and activity, and task-relevant knowledge (Kinicki & Kreitner 2009, p. 462). However, further studies revealed that people with these traits are more likely to be followers than leaders. There have also been studies on the perceived notion of who an ideal leader is and the major leadership prototypes stemmed out of those researches were associated with intelligence, masculinity and dominance. There were also researchers who regarded honesty as the most significant leadership trait whereas some others stressed on emotional intelligence or personality. While there are a lot of debates over the most important leadership traits, it is evident that anyone who does not possess such leadership traits cannot be expected to be at the top of an organization or company. One can clearly o bserve the relation between the trait theory and transformational leadership. It is essential to know why transformational leadership highlights the importance of trait theory. According to Farrell, Souchon & Durden (2000), a transformational leader is most likely to be â€Å"charismatic, inspirational, intellectually stimulating to followers, and individually considerate† whereas a transactional leader is likely to be â€Å"short-term and instrumentally focused, in that s/he will lead by providing rewards contingent on performance, and manage by exception†

Entreprenuership -Trader joes Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Entreprenuership -Trader joes - Assignment Example He opened stores designed with fish nets and boat oars on the walls. Employees were dressed in bright tropical shirts and the stores where packed with food items which are preferred by the customers during vacations. The enterprise also partnered with dealers worldwide to make the foods available at popular holiday destinations at their stores. The founder believed that if the people can spend huge amount of their money to experience great tastes available at those holiday destinations, people would definitely spend on those goods if they are available in store near their homes. The unique value proposition of the company includes availability of unique food items with new tastes, minimum price charged for products, high bargaining with suppliers. The organization researched about the products that the Americans prefer the most on their vacations. It also believes that the money saved by the organization while procuring goods from suppliers is the money saved by the customers. Thus, the company creates value by supplying goods at minimum prices. The enterprise also acquires goods directly from the suppliers to reduce their costs. Trader Joe’s also utilizes the loop holes of government regulations on wines. Since private label wines were not covered under the laws, the company persuaded them to sell their production under the label of Trader Joe’s. As the price of these labels were low than popular brands, they were preferred by the customers (â€Å"Understanding Trader Joe’s†). The key metrics are the measures which assess the performance of the company. Traders Joe’s growth in sales and the increase in the number of stores are the metrics used to understand the success of the enterprise. It has been observed that the sales growth of the company has increased over the years but in the recent times, there is a high competition in the retail sector and this may lead to

Reflective Account Values Essay Example for Free

Reflective Account Values Essay The first part of this Reflective Account describes what influences and events in my life have helped to develop my Personal Values. My grandparents taught me most of my basic ‘Personal Values’. I learned from an early age how to be polite, have good manners and respect my elders as failure to do so would result in getting sent to bed early. In those days I did not have a television in my room so in my eyes this was the ultimate punishment! They were not deeply religious people; my grandmother attended church every Sunday and took me to Sunday school. At the age of twelve she gave me the choice as whether to attend or not. I did not attend but she still taught me the moral values of respecting myself, my body and how a female should/ should not behave in public and at home. As today’s culture climate is changing towards how some young women behave e.g. children to several partners, going out barely clothed and getting themselves into all sorts of situations, I feel she was perhaps right in her teachings but when I say this to some of my nieces they tend to tell me I’m a bit too old fashioned and they’re glad I’m not their mother. I do not have any specific religious values and I would not disagree or agree with anybody else’s views, I hold the value of everybody being entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. I have passed all of these values onto my own child over the years and feel proud when people say what a polite and thoughtful man he is. A value that changed as I got older was one of ‘First Impressions’. Again, my grandfather (who was a policeman) taught me that first impressions count but an experience in a local cafe showed me that this was untrue. An elderly gentleman who was often drunk and smelly used to come into the cafe and nobody, including myself would go near or speak to him. This day the only seat available to him was the one next to me. He started talking to me and I was astounded to realize that he was a very intelligent man, he was talking about things going on in the world and using words I had to ask the meanings of. I now use the value ‘Don’t judge a book by its cover’. A very important value which I learned was that of ‘Family’ values. Coming from a small dysfunctional family where there was no real closeness I married into a large family where they all lived in one another’s pockets. I learned all about honesty, trust and support in the family circle, how they were all there for each other, supporting each other through the good and bad times regardless of the consequences. When I divorced my son’s father, his family  supported both of us so my son had the best of both worlds, time with me and time with his father. I did not have this as a child, I did not see my father unless he was on a sober day and I never saw my mother until I was sixteen years old. I find this value very high on my list of personal values and have tried to pass this on to my son as he is about to become a father himself. Overall I have an open mind and I am willing to learn and compromise, maybe change a particular value or belief depending on th e role and situation I am in at the time, which takes me on to the second part of this reflective account. The second part of this reflective account describes how my personal values relate to social care values. As a social care worker I must follow the guidelines and key concepts as laid down by the Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC). This council was formed in October 2001 by the Scottish Government and aims to raise the standards in the field of Social Care Services. They have laid down ‘Core Values’ which underpin Social Care conduct. These ‘Core values’ are Dignity, Privacy, Choice, Safety, Realising Potential and Equality and Diversity. I believe that everybody has freedom of choice. We all make choices, whether it be what we wear, eat, what career path we choose to follow. Our choices can be endless but can also be limited. Limited choices can be because of things like finances, availability or circumstances, other choices depend on health, safety and danger to ourselves or to others. In my role as a social care worker I have a service user who has complex, additional needs and also uses a wheelchair. This user has the choice to use their wheelchair and can work the back brakes managing to get around the classroom at any time. This makes it difficult for us to manage the rest of the class as the user has no sense of danger and could possibly harm or put other class members in danger. We therefore have to take away the user’s choice of chair as we need to keep them and the rest of the class and staff safe and free from harm. This example shows that conflict can arise between the ‘Core values’ of ‘Promoting Choice’ and ‘Keeping People Safe’ Privacy is not just a case of liking your own company or keeping private matters to yourself. I like my own privacy, having time to myself gives me the chance to gather my thoughts or just chill out in my own way. I can choose what I want people to know about me without fear, prejudice or being discriminated against. Privacy in Social Care often works alongside Dignity. Dignity is a value which varies from person to person. I myself on going to the bathroom would lock the door so that no one else comes in, another person might not bother, and for some people, they may be unable to do so. In Social Care a service users Privacy and Dignity must be preserved at all times. This means that when I support a user dressing/ undressing I must take them to the bathroom (as it is a school the bathroom is the only place for the user to do this as the door locks) maintaining their dignity and privacy. As well as respecting their dignity I also have to ensure that their private personal details are kept private from outside sources. Any written information such as care plans or medical records would be locked away in the filing cabinet in the Headmistresses office. Another aspect of privacy would be confidentiality. In my role as a social care worker I would hopefully have the trust of the user so’s that they could speak to me about anything, if I had any concerns that they would harm or put themselves or others

Essay --

Sigrid Axelsson SP3A Philosophy 1 Philosophy of language; Essay Question # 4 This essay will specifically try to answer question number; 4) What is the meaning of ‘in the head’ (ideational)? How does Wittgenstein’s beetle box through experiment suggest otherwise? The meaning â€Å"in the head† is ideational and the Wittgenstein beetle box theory supports that everything is created in the head and is ideational, but not that everyone has the same concept of reality. Is the meaning â€Å"in the head† (ideational)? Ideational is when an idea pops up in one’s head and a light bulb is switched on within the person who has the ideational moment in the mind. Yes, â€Å"in the head† is referring to the ideational theories where a sentence or a word is, as an example â€Å"in the head† is referring to the metal image of the inside of the head that is created in the brain when the word or sentence of â€Å"in the head† is seen and heard by the human being. This is seen with Locke’s explanation, that when the word red is seen or heard, the brain portrays redness as the metal image within the brain, and th...

Death of a Salesman Essay

In 1949; whilst America saw the culmination of anti-communist feelings, fear of the unknown and the general hysteria which stemmed from the Cold War against Russia; playwright Arthur Miller published what was seen to be a personal criticism of the American way of life, his play, â€Å"Death of A Salesman†. Death of A Salesman tells the story of Willy Loman, a lowly salesman slowly being estranged from society and increasingly led into confusion by his attempts to escape his own failure brought about by the great American Dream he has served so loyally. It was for this play Miller was brought in front of HUAC (house un-American activities committee) and charged with undermining American Values. Miller defended himself by claiming he simply aspired to â€Å"show the truth as [he] saw it†. It is because Miller insisted on adhering to realism, that he chose a normal, â€Å"Loman†, or literally, low man, to be his Tragic Hero. In doing so, Miller broke one rule- that of Aristotelian tragedy, which demands a â€Å"noble† hero, of high birth; and simultaneously abided by another, the rule of a Modern Domestic Tragedy which requires an ordinary person’s story to be told. Whilst Milton would have deplored this â€Å"introducing of trivial and vulgar persons [into tragedy]†, Miller dismissed all criticism of his choice of hero, demanding his accusers to recognise â€Å"it matters not whether the hero falls from a great height or a small one†, or as Linda puts it, â€Å"he’s not the finest character who ever lived. But he’s a human being and a terrible thing is happening to him† the importance then, lies in the way and reason for which the character falls. Willy does, however, comply with both the moulds of an Aristotelian tragedy and Modern Domestic Tragedy in that he suffers from a Hamartia which results in his fall from grace and eventual death. Most critics and audiences identify Willy’s Hamartia as his Hubris, his over inflated sense of self-worth and pride, which means he refuses help even as he becomes increasingly lost. However, a few critics complain that Willy cannot be a tragic hero, as he does not have one fatal flaw but many which combine to bring Willy down. This idea, as expressed by Thomas Adler, Ruby Cohn and others rests on the existence of other factors in Willy’s life, Willy is not only proud, but stupid, cursed with the wrong dreams, lacking in vision and most of all weak. It is this weakness which prohibits him from escaping the â€Å"Jungle† of the American Dream, meaning he dies within it; a result of it and as a sacrifice to it, hoping that his death will reveal the â€Å"diamonds† he seeks. Willy’s actual death in Death of A Salesman is not shown on stage, but rather, it is symbolised by the â€Å"sound of a car†¦moving away at full speed† then the â€Å"crash[ing] down [of music]† which in turn morphs into â€Å"a dead march†, not explicitly showing the morbid act, but implying it heavily enough for the audience to be in no doubt of its occurrence. It is typical of a Modern Domestic Tragedy death not to occur in front of the audience. The music in this ‘death scene’ is poignant, powerful and very implicit to the plot, without it the audience would not know of Willy’s death. Music runs throughout the play as a catalyst through which Miller makes the subtler, unspoken â€Å"presences† or emotions known. Take for example the flute’s melody which serves as both a melancholy theme tune to Willy’s failings and a musical embodiment of his estranged Father’s ghost, who â€Å"made more in a week than a man like [Willy] could in a lifetime† . The flute embodies both these roles in â€Å"Requiem†. First, Willy’s failings are made clearer than ever as Linda starts to truly mourn her husband and elicit an impossible last goodbye from him. Second, flute also shows Willy’s father’s presence because we know it is from his father that Willy got the â€Å"wrong dreams† which drove him to the grave Linda sits by. It is perhaps important to consider the role of ‘ghosts’ or past figures which appear throughout the play. Ghosts and figures from the past litter tragedy throughout the centuries. Indeed, the oldest surviving complete tragedy, Aeschylus’s Persians (472 BC) features the ghost of the dead King Darius returning from the past to cast judgement over his son Xerxes, whom he deems to be failing in his role and pursuing the wrong dreams. This is not unlike the mocking presence of Willy’s own father and his brother Ben, both deceased who continue to taunt Willy with dreams he cannot achieve. Willy’s suicide is at once self-congratulating, misguided and selfless. He wants to escape the feeling he is â€Å"temporary† by truly leaving something behind, â€Å"something one can feel with the hand†. This something is his â€Å"diamond† of the $20,000 insurance money, which will make him a â€Å"hero† for Biff to â€Å"worship† and helping Biff to start up a business of his own. Requiem holds no answers as to whether the premium was paid and through this and the melancholy despair that runs through the final scene, Miller shows how pointless Willy’s death truly was. No matter how much money he leaves behind, it will never compensate for the loss the family has to endure. Linda cannot even understand his motives and Happy encapsulates the mood when he declares â€Å"There was no necessity for it†. A sad twist of irony is Biff making it clear he is moving away. Thus, he would never have used the money anyway. This shows the true uselessness of Willy’s death and also his father’s lack of understanding of his own son, who from the start is happiest in the open â€Å"playing around with horses†. However a sadder twist is Happy’s utter unwillingness to learn from his father’s mistakes, and despite declaring â€Å"Willy Loman did not die in vain† he goes on to prove the opposite, promising to â€Å"win it for him [Willy]†. The Requiem shows Willy’s final delusion shattered. There is a simple answer to Linda’s piteous, â€Å"why did nobody come? † The answer is that Willy was not, contrary to what he claims time and time again, â€Å"known†, because he has not changed with the times, and the old values he clings to do not make a man â€Å"known† or â€Å"a success† at all. Evidence of Willy’s failure to change with time can be traced back to, as Richard T. Brucher puts it, Willy’s â€Å"unexpected, marvellingly innocent question†: â€Å"How can they whip cheese? † Such a simple statement exemplifies his static approach to modern life; he wants everything to return to the â€Å"great days† and is unwilling to change anything, least of all his expectations and aspirations. Irony is another key feature of a Modern Domestic Tragedy and Linda’s last lines, her mantra of reassurance, â€Å"We’re Free†¦ We’re free† is more heavily laden with irony than any other line of the play. The lines are applicable in so many different ways, not only the upfront meaning of the family being free from debt. They also despondently relay Miller’s message that if you live following the American Dream and have consumerism as your only moral compass and religion, then the only way to free yourself is to die. A much more cynical view of Linda’s words, as proposed by D. L. Hoeveler, suggests they epitomise the family’s darker subconscious thoughts, that now Willy is gone, they no longer have to continue on the paths they were forced down. They are â€Å"free† of the burden Willy placed on them. However, the earlier events show that despite no longer being pushed down the path of the American Dream, Happy will continue to pursue it, so this interpretation too is heavily ironic. As for Linda, being â€Å"free† from the burden of Willy is certainly not what she would wish for, after all she â€Å"more than loves him† and even his â€Å"little cruelties† do not change this. She needs to look after Willy so that she has a purpose and an aim. The play ends as it began, bringing the action back to the beginning and lending a continuous rhythm to the play, with Linda’s anxious disconcerted calling to the deceased Willy, mimicking her trepidation in the opening scene when Willy enters. It is the flute which opens and closes the play. Everything reverting back to the way the play started shows how insignificant Willy’s death really is. Capitalism does not crumble, life goes on. It is here that I believe Modern Domestic Tragedies are flawed, where Shakespearian ones are not. When Macbeth dies, the audience is certain that his Kingdom will mourn his loss, however warped he was, he was still their King. There will be a â€Å"massive† funeral, of the sorts Willy dreams of, and a Kingdom-wide expression of collective grief. It is this grief that I believe provides the catharsis of emotion for the audience, they know his death will continue to be felt after they leave the theatre and this assurance brings closure. This closure however, does not exist in Modern Domestic Tragedies. Willy’s death will go unnoticed by most, and this does not bring significant catharsis to the audience. There is no final completion of raw emotion. To support my view I can only offer the words of Shakespeare himself, â€Å"The poor beetle on which we tread In corporal sufferance feels a pang as great As when a Giant dies. â€Å"