The Lattice 2020-2021

STUDENT WRITING FROM THE MONTCLAIR KIMBERLEY ACADEMY UPPER SCHOOL 2020-2021

Student Editors

Faculty Editors

Noah Weinberg Natalia Espinosa-Dice Ethan Lieberman Carolina Lucas

Caroline Toman Patty Forbes Eric Salehi

Contributing Writers Lily Piede, ‘22 Olivia Puzio, ‘21 Julian Hough, ‘23 Ethan Lieberman, ‘22 Emma Burd, ‘22 Noah Weinberg, ‘22 Nicholas Baum, ‘23 Maggie Horn, ‘24 Kelsey Freeman, ‘21 Lauren Schier, ‘22 Riley Rendino, ‘21 Lead and Co-Editor: Emani Fung and Jake Gale Faculty Advisor: Caroline Toman Artwork: Julia Petrocelli, ‘20 Note from the Editor For decades, The Montclair Kimberley Academy’s History and English departments have been lauded for blending tradition with an open embrace of progress. The result is a curriculum characterized by its dynamic durability. This durability was particularly challenged this year, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. With hybrid learning, both teachers and students had to navigate a new digital environment. Nevertheless, they adapted to the unknown, and continued to produce work that is creative, insightful, and expertly-crafted.

With this issue, The Lattice aims to showcase the brilliant writing students submitted to our MKA Humanities classes in what was perhaps the strangest school year in history. May their grit and tenacity in the face of global uncertainty inspire you.

Table of Contents Dealing with the Devil: Critiques of Capitalism in Doctor Faustus……..1 Lily Piede Brexit: The Inevitable Breakup……………………………….………...........5 Olivia Puzio Macbeth: Death by a Wayward Will-to-Live………………………………....9 Julian Hough Things Fall Apart: Shifting the Gaze Toward Authenticity and Understanding…………………..……………………………………………..14 Ethan Liberman Social Darwinism During the Gilded Age: An Aristocratic and Egocentric Misconception……………………………………………….........22 Emma Burd Balancing Prejudice with Progress in The Sun Also Rises………………27 Noah Weinberg Frankenstein, Hayek, and the Dangers of Knowledge…………………...31 Nicholas Baum Power’s Moral Crossroads: A Path to Pride or a Path to Integrity?.......38 Maggie Horn Changing the Vision: Balancing Personal Beliefs with Society’s Obsession with Religion………………………………………………………42 Kelsey Freeman

Creative Features Works that are academic in concept, creative in execution.

On How We Teach Poetry………………………………………..…………...46 Lauren Schier Transformative Justice…….……....…….……....…….……....………........53 Riley Rendino

Works from Outside Publications A featured article written by an MKA student for an outside publication.

Social Media and the Consequences of Unfree Speech…………………..62 Nicholas Baum

Dealing with the Devil Critiques of Capitalism in Doctor Faustus Lily Piede

“Why does this still matter?” That is the question many students ask themselves upon reading centuries-old works of literature. However, this artform can often transcend generations, acting as a time capsule from the past that offers essential messages to the present. In this analysis, Lily Piede reminds us of this enduring power of literature.

Written for MKA’s Renaissance Literature class, this essay details the ways in which Christopher Marlowe’s 1604 play Doctor Faustus critiques early-stage capitalism and emphasizes the importance of religion. On the surface, this analysis discusses the transitioning values of 16th century Europe from community-minded religious doctrine to mercenary individualism. However, Piede also imparts an alarming, yet timely warning for contemporary readers on the dangers of excessive materialism and self-interest.

urope’s 15th-17th century Renaissance period produced some of the most influential political thought and theology in the entirety of world history.

Religion, which had been lauded as law during the Middle Ages, was called into question. Political tensions between Catholics, Protestants, and neighboring countries led to violent clashes. All around, there was a widespread abandonment of traditional values. And, most importantly, Europe began to see the rise of a new economic system: capitalism. Replacing the feudal system, capitalism allowed for wealthy members of society to rapidly gain wealth and power, often at the expense of the labor of the lower classes. Christoper Marlowe’s 1604 play Doctor Faustus examines this internal struggle of man, religion, culture, and capital as Europe experienced a “rebirth” from the Medieval period to the Renaissance. The titular character Faustus is one of many individuals in the Renaissance era vying for material gain and glory, but he takes a different approach to getting what he wants: Faustus trades his soul to Lucifer in exchange for absolute power and the servitude of his very own demon, Mephastophilus. Doctor Faustus critiques early-stage capitalist Europe through equating academic pursuits with greed, depicting the commodification of Faustus’ soul, the gradual corruption of Faustus’ values, and Faustus’ inevitable demise at the hands of spiritual forces.

Marlowe suggests that the educated classes are power-hungry through portraying Faustus’ transition from scholastic pursuits to lusting for power. This represents the harmful, greedy culture of higher learning in capitalist society. At the beginning of the play, Faustus renounces the numerous areas of study in which 1

he has partaken, saying, “Sweet Analytics, tis thou hast ravished me...Is to dispute well logic’s chiefest end?/Afford this art no greater miracle?/Then read no more, thou hast attained the end;/A greater subject fitteth Faustus wit” (Marlowe, 1.6-9).

Faustus thus decides that his education does not satisfy him, and that he must seek something larger than any university could teach him. Although higher education is more widely available in modern times, in the Renaissance era, only the wealthiest families

were

able

to

send

their

sons

to

study

in

universities.

The

university-educated classes of Europe would benefit the most from early capitalism, and would soon rise to the top of the social hierarchy. Marlowe therefore paints Faustus’ education as a catalyst for his unquenchable greed. He has already learned more than the majority of Europe could even fathom, yet he is still not satisfied and wants to learn answers to the greatest questions of life. Furthermore, academia introduces Faustus to the dark arts of necromancy in the first place. Valdes and Cornelius, two of Faustus’ friends and both German scholars, are the ones who guide Faustus into practicing magic. Cornelius tells Faustus: “The miracles that magic will perform/Will make thee vow to study nothing else” (1.136-137), implying that Marlowe views institutions of higher learning as indoctrination schools for capitalistic pursuit and the abandonment of morals. This representation portrays academia as a stepping stone in a loss of faith and in the embrace of individualism and materialism.

The commodification of Faustus’ soul, and Faustus’ failure to gauge the value of it when bartering with Lucifer, symbolizes the materialism and overall disregard for spiritual values of the Renaissance period. Lucifer demands something in exchange for having Mephastophilius serve as Faustus’ personal demon. So, Faustus uses his soul as a form of currency, declaring, “Had I as many souls as there be stars,/I’d give them all for Mephastophilis/By him I’ll be great emperor of the world”(1.102-104). While Faustus does consider the consequences of selling his soul to the devil, he eventually decides that glory and wealth for twenty-four years is worth more than the value of his own soul. This exchange represents materialism in the early capitalist society of Renaissance Europe.

2

Everything can be reduced to a value, or a cost, in capitalism, including the soul, body, and mind. While recognized by Faustus, the spiritual sentiment of the soul—believed by Christians to be a separate, immortal entity from the body—is ultimately lost upon him once the prospects of wealth and glory are on the table.

Faustus’ decision signifies the loss of the spiritual values that had been once embraced as law during the Medieval era. Ambitions turned from achieving heaven to rising among the social classes and having prosperity in the material world. As capitalism continued to spread throughout Europe, morals and religious values became nearly obsolete.

The perversion of Faustus’ ambitions following his deal with Lucifer represents the inevitable loss of morality that occurs under capitalistic systems.

Faustus initially makes the deal with Lucifer so that he can use his newfound powers to discover the answers to life’s greatest questions. However, once he realizes the extent of his power, he abandons these noble motivations to play petty jokes and satisfy his immediate desires. After offering his soul to Lucifer in scene 4, Faustus proclaims, “...I’ll be great emperor of the world,/And make a bridge through moving air...And make that land continent to Spain,/And both contributory to my crown/The emperor shall not live but by my leave.” Later in the play, Faustus states, “Well I am content to compass then some sport,/And by their folly make us merriment./Then charm me that I may be invisible, to do what I please/unseen of any whilst I stay in Rome” (Marlowe 1. ). This transition reveals that Faustus has easily lost sight of his grand plans, and that the principles which he once held are corrupted and forgotten. This reflects the inherent corruption within a laissez-faire economic system and capitalism as a whole. While those in power may pledge to honor their values and act in an ethical manner, their economic influence and the resulting power they hold over others inevitably perverts their judgement.

Despite Faustus’ wealth and fame in the material world and abandonment of God, he is still subject to the rules of the spiritual world. In the final hour of his life, Faustus begins to fear the prospect of eternal damnation, despite all of his 3

material gains. He realizes that his wealth and fame won’t save him in the afterlife, saying, “God forbade it indeed, but Faustus hath done it: for the vain pleasure of four and twenty years hath Faustus lost eternal joy and felicity” (13.36-38). Here lies Marlowe’s main critique of capitalism: although some of his contemporaries had abandoned religion for materialism, Marlowe argues that they are still subject to theological law. Materialism cannot replace faith, just as wealth and fame cannot replace God. Capitalism may provide temporary happiness and gratification, but none that can compare to a life of eternal happiness in heaven.

Marlowe’s conclusion is ultimately a warning: those who pursue their consumerist desires no matter the cost, just as Faustus did, will have to face an eternity in Hell.

While Faustus was ultimately damned for his materialistic pursuits, Marlowe leaves the reader with a salient message: not to ignore faith, to consider the consequences of any action, and to think beyond oneself. Although Marlowe wrote Doctor Faustus more than four hundred years ago, his critiques of capitalist society and the greed of humans are more relevant than ever in the modern day.

Even now, lust for power corrupts society and one’s worth is determined by how much product they can produce. Society must take heed of Marlowe’s message, or else face the same, grisly fate of eternal damnation.

4

Brexit The Inevitable Breakup Olivia Puzio

The nuances of international conflict, such as the United Kingdom’s 2020 withdrawal from the European Union, can be difficult to grasp from afar—especially for Americans, who are particularly used to being centered in political conversations. Luckily for us, Olivia Puzio has written a succinct and easy-to-understand guide on Brexit that offers readers who lack a full comprehension of the situation an opportunity to gain more knowledge about both Brexit and British politics in general. Puzio’s direct and concise writing style will allow even the most flummoxed of readers to process the biggest British scandal in recent history.

fter what started as a political ploy to secure votes in the 2015 election, Brexit has finally fulfilled itself with Britain’s recent split with the European Union. David Cameron first introduced the idea of Brexit in the form of a referendum during the 2015 election, using it as a platform to run on and secure the majority of Conservative voters. His plan was simple: Attract voters with the potential of an EU referendum but ultimately keep Britain in the EU. Based on his immediate resignation after the 2016 referendum, Cameron was shocked and surprised that a majority of English people would vote to leave the EU. But was it really that shocking? Britain and the European continent have had a tense relationship prior to the EU’s conception. The United Kingdom first wanted to join the EU in 1961, but their request was denied and they were forced to wait until 1973 to officially become a member. In 1972, opposition against Britain’s joining began and has continued to grow for the last 40 years. Britain’s exit from the EU was inevitable as Britain’s relationship with Europe was historically tense, and the EU began to encroach upon Britain’s traditionally independent status from Europe.

Britain and the European continent have historically had a distant relationship. As a powerful country near the European continent, Britain has made enemies with numerous European countries, often fighting for the same territories or trade routes. During World War Two, the British feel they were left to stand alone during their darkest hour and fight against Nazi Germany, abandoned by Europe. Although certain European countries have been important allies at specific points in history, Britain’s overall feeling towards the rest of the European

5

continent is one of distance. Further emphasizing this sense of distance is the physical distance between Europe and Britain. As an island, Britain has been isolated from the European continent, and it is only within the last 100 years, with the rise of industrialization and globalization, that Britain has begun to enter into relationships with European countries. Britain’s isolationist past was long ago, but the objections to remaining “independent” and cutting ties with the European continent remain. Britain is accustomed to being in complete control of its countries regulations, a right many feel is being infringed upon by the EU. Britain first joined the EU in order to boost its economy after World War Two but soon realized that the EU had more requirements than Britain had expected.

After seeing France and Germany prosper due to their participation in the European Economic Community, Britain also expressed interest in joining, only to be vetoed twice by French President Charles de Gaulle. Waiting until Charles de Gaulle was out of office, Britain officially joined the EEC, whose duties were later absorbed into the EU, in 1973. The Treaty of Accession of 1972 was immediately met with scrutiny, particularly from Labour members of Parliament. Peter Shore, a Labour representative, believed that joining the EU was an infringement of the British Parliament and the British people’s democratic rights. As time went on, membership in the European Union began to change multiple aspects of British life.

Britain was subject to a multitude of regulations regarding not only the economy but also areas like immigration and currency. Becoming more and more constrained by the EU and with increasing pressures of immigration and currency changes, the idea of the EU’s infringement of British sovereignty that had arisen in 1972 began to intensify, eventually leading to the Brexit “leave” referendum.

Britain and the European continent’s difficult relationship set the stage for Britain’s short-lived membership in the EU. Soon after joining, Britain realized that it had not entered into just a trading community, but a coalition of countries that also regulated currency, civil services and had its own supreme court. Used to living on an independent island separated from Europe, the British felt the EU had begun

6

to overstep its limits with the plethora of regulations imposed upon Britain thus culminating in Britain officially leaving the EU.

7

8

Macbeth Death by a Wayward Will-to-Live Julian Hough

Most people are inclined to read Shakespeare’s Macbeth because they delight in the Bard’s tale of bloodlust, gore, and revenge. However, Julian Hough instead focuses on the titular character’s psychology and analyzes his nihilistic lack of fulfillment. Hough expertly navigates the hole in Macbeth’s heart that cannot be filled, no matter how much power or blood he accrues, and also examines nihilism on a broader scale—as a property embedded in the human condition. Thanks to Hough’s deliberate word choice and unrelenting analysis, reading this essay will give anyone a more nuanced understanding of the concept of “will-to-live.”

o live is to suffer,” laments philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche of the brutal nature of life, “to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering.” This dichotomous quote perfectly summarizes the conundrum of the self-absorbed and tormented King Macbeth, who suffers greatly because of his unbridled will to attain power. The real tragedy, however, is that he fails to find meaning in his suffering.

His life is full of senseless violence that he has initiated, but he is so tormented in the meaninglessness of life that he feels like a victim, rather than a villain. What, then, makes him a victim? As anyone who has toiled toward a dubious goal—only to feel a pang of emptiness in the heart upon achievement—can attest, Macbeth is a victim of his own untamed “will-to-live,”1 which takes full control over his life.

Enthralled by his egoistic will to attain power, Macbeth deepens his mental entrapment by committing a series of violent acts until violence itself takes a life of its own and supersedes all meaning in his life, ultimately causing him to search for meaning in fighting itself so as not to succumb to meaninglessness.

Macbeth’s tragedy starts when he places his narcissistic egoism, which gives birth to his unbridled will to attain power, ahead of any other purpose in his life.

His egoism, spurred by the witches and Lady Macbeth, supersedes his rationality and emboldens him “to annihilate the world, in order to maintain his own self, that drop in the ocean” (Schopenhauer 390). From this point on, his eyes are set on himself, instead of the people of Scotland or any other higher purpose. This misplaced focus is the starting point of his tragedy. Not only is Macbeth’s will-to-live 1

“Will to live” is a concept discussed in Arthur Schopenhauer’s book, The World as Will and Representation, in which he discusses the “will-to-live” as the subject, rather than the object, that has its own power to control one’s action (“representation”).

9

misguided, but it is also so strong that it quickly takes control of his life, forcing him to rechannel all of his mental energy and military might to attain and retain power.

Macbeth shows his self-absorption—which feeds him false confidence that he is the author of life himself and that his fate is solely in his hands—when he declares, “Rather than so, come fate into the list. / And champion me to the utterance!”

(3.1.69-70). Overtaken by this narcissistic worldview, he boastfully justifies the murder of King Duncan, stating, “There is none but he / Whose being I do fear… / My genius is rebuk'd, as, it is said, / Mark Antony's was by Caesar” (3.1.52-55). His self-orientedness does not change even after all of his suffering. When Lady Macbeth, Macbeth’s partner in crime, dies by suicide, he laments, “she should have died hereafter; / There would have been a time for such a word?” (5.5.17-18), showing that his immediate concern is around the inconvenience that her untimely death causes him as opposed to genuine sadness from losing her. Macbeth is an egomaniac, whose worldview revolves around him and his gain only. His narcissistic focus on himself ultimately places his life on a path of tragedy.

Macbeth’s tragedy deepens when his will-to-live takes a life of its own, turning him into a nihilist, who becomes desensitized by the ever-increasing violence of his own acts and alienated from the purpose of his suffering. After murdering King Duncan, Macbeth realizes he has to defend his throne against doubters of the legitimacy of his throne. As such, the iniquity of his acts intensifies.

His willingness to use violence takes over the reins of his life, leaving Macbeth’s role to be a mere manifestation of the self-willed will-to-live. Realizing that he is trapped, Macbeth proclaims, “Better be with the dead, / Whom we to gain our peace have sent to peace, / Than on the torture of the mind to lie/In restless ecstasy” (3.2.

21-24). Upon Lady Macbeth’s death, Macbeth realizes the futility of all the brutal acts he has committed. The wayward will-to-live has commandeered his life, which falls into the bottomless pit of nihilism. In a forlorn state, Macbeth laments “his disgust for life” (Pratt) and the futility of the future: Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow Creeps in this petty pace from day to day, 10

To the last syllable of recorded time, And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more; it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. (5.5.19-28) Defeated in abject nihilism, Macbeth compares himself to a stage actor, who only briefly delivers his acts as “a poor player” as ordered on “the stage” of life, only to vanish upon the completion of murderous acts without leaving any lasting meaning.

With Lady Macbeth’s death, who represents the last of the things that have meaning to Macbeth, he is utterly lost in the meaninglessness of life.

After all that has meaning is lost, Macbeth decides to continue to fight, as if to vanquish the will-to-live with death by fighting till his last breath. If he chose to commit suicide following Lady Macbeth’s footsteps, he would succumb to the devilish will-to-live, which expects death as the next logical step when the “poor player” is done with his act. However, Macbeth decides to fight—a surprising move that contradicts his earlier admission that he wants the “brief candle” of his meaningless life to be put “out.” This final act hints at his enlightenment that the only meaning he can ascribe to his vacuous life is the continuation of his acts of violence. It does not matter to him why he is fighting—for the attainment of the throne, revenge for Lady Macbeth’s death, or any other reason—because fighting itself is the only thing that can justify his life. Macbeth is so focused on fighting until the end of his life that he does not heed his soldiers, who desert him in the face of impending death. He cries, "Bring me no more reports; let them fly all. / … / I cannot taint with fear” (5.3.1-3). The fleeing soldiers are symbolic of Macbeth’s fight for survival. Macbeth turns toward the advancing army and boldly states, “I will not yield / … / I will try the last. Before my body / I throw my warlike shield” (5.7.57-63). By choosing not to commit suicide—which is just another meaningless 11

act, according to Schopenhauer—he chooses to fight to his death, so as to justify his life as a fighter. He dies by decapitation, which liberates his body from his head’s will-to-live. His decision to fight as his last act is symbolic of his enlightenment, liberation, and existential victory. Realizing that his entire life was mere enactment, enthralled by the wayward will-to-live, Macbeth chooses to redeem himself with a self-granted will-to-fight, a will he can call entirely his own.

Notwithstanding his own will, Macbeth’s life is replete with suffering, thus validating Nietzche’s philosophy. His suffering starts with his egoism that crosses the boundary of morality, continues under a total subjugation of his will-to-live, and results in nihilism, in which he is tormented by the utter meaninglessness of life.

However, in the final moments of his forlorn life, broken yet defiant Macbeth refuses to succumb to meaninglessness by deciding to fight. He has lost everything that has significance—his friends, his wife, his throne, and his legacy as the noble general—but he has one existential purpose left in the waning moments of his life: to fight. He is a fighter, and fighting is the meaning of his life that he tries to restore before his body, the physical faculty that fights, gets liberated from his head, the mental faculty that has been enslaved by a gripping will-to-live.

12

Works Cited Pratt, Alan. "Nihilism." Nihilism, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN 2161-0002, iep.utm.edu/nihilism/.

Schopenhauer, Arthur. The World as Will and Representation. Translated by E. F. J Payne, New York, Dover, 2014.

13

Things Fall Apart Shifting the Gaze Toward Authenticity and Understanding Ethan Lieberman

It occurs all too often that Western lenses are imposed onto the narratives of the rest of the world in ways that distort and bastardize them. Thankfully, Ethan Lieberman reverses this trend. In this essay, Lieberman meticulously unfolds the manners through which Chinua Achebe rebukes the various stereotypes placed upon Africa and instead provides a fuller, more complete picture of Igbo culture in his novel Things Fall Apart. Lieberman’s clear-cut understanding of the text and mastery over the standard essay format is what makes this essay shine. Even those who have read Things Fall Apart multiple times will walk away with a new appreciation for Achebe’s seminal work.

n his satirical piece How to Write About Africa, Binyavanga Wainaina calls for a full, unbiased narrative of Africa -- one that balances the adverse characteristics of the culture, which Western authors far too frequently center their entire literature around, in conjunction with the more positive tales of life and tradition (Wainaina). Chinua Achebe achieves this in his novel Things Fall Apart as he follows the Igbo people in the Nigerian clan of Umuofia before and during colonization pursued by Christian missionaries. Through his portrayal, Achebe does not illustrate a perfect, idealized version of the Igbo community; rather, he simply seeks to characterize them as human. As such, Achebe acknowledges both the thriving vitality and inherent flaws in Igbo culture to construct a full narrative that challenges the preconceived singular perception of savagery Westerners hold for Africa; consequently, Achebe’s vibrant portrayal of the community makes its colonization

all

the

more

devastating,

ultimately

shifting

the

readers’

understanding of colonizers from heroic saviors to ruthless destroyers.

By illustrating Igbo culture’s colorful soul and zeal, Achebe humanizes the community and sheds light on the beliefs and customs that joyously unite its members. With an emphasis on loyalty and ancestral pride, celebrations of life and marriage forge deep connections among clan members. On the day of her uri, a ceremony in which a woman’s suitor brings palm-wine to the clan, Obierika’s daughter’s “brass anklets rattled as she danced and her body gleamed with cam wood in the soft yellow light” (Achebe 118). Achebe’s use of light evokes a sense of

14

natural beauty and energy. This vivid depiction radiates light and reverberates music, breathing life into the novel’s pages. By dancing “in a big circle,” a sense of jubilation and comradery emerges, as all attention is drawn to the dancing bride (Achebe 118). Achebe intends for readers to understand and appreciate Igbo culture to the fullest extent. By making it clear that “they were all gay” during this celebration,

Achebe

combats

the

Western

prejudice

that

Africans

are

two-dimensional and uncivilized, and thus miserable in their current state (Achebe 118). Seeing this joy as evidence of a thriving, connected community, it becomes more difficult for the reader to accept the later justification for colonization, which cites clans’ supposed need to be pacified and brought under Western control for economic and social success.

Achebe details the narrative of the colonized prior to their colonization, demonstrating that the Igbo community must be understood as separate from the West in its own context. The Igbo clan’s perception of locusts as a “sight full of power and beauty” stands in stark contrast to the use of locusts as the eighth plague in the Bible, the center of Christian worship (Achebe 56). In Genesis, Moses warns the Pharaoh that God will send so many locusts that they will “cover each and every tree of the land and eat all that is there to be eaten” (Genesis 10.4).

Achebe’s writing seems to mirror that of the Bible when describing the locusts’ covering of all the land: “Mighty tree branches broke away under them, and the whole country became the brown-earth color of the vast, hungry swarm” (Achebe 56). While locusts are a source of terror and destruction in the Bible, the Igbo people celebrate this arrival of new food. With different priorities and relationships with the environment, the Igbo clan finds beauty in the number and strength of the locusts. This difference in philosophy reflects the isolation of the Igbo clan from the Western, Christian world prior to colonization. Unaware of Christianity, the Igbo community has a set of beliefs and order that is uniquely their own. Cultural relativism implies that societies have inherently different ways of thinking, and thus can exist and flourish independently from one another (Rosaldo). In the words of Okonkwo, “the world is large” and would be monotonous if all societies across the 15

globe shared the same religion and culture (Achebe 74). Perhaps this is at the essence of Achebe’s construction of the novel, as he illustrates that no one set of beliefs is superior to that of another community, and thus the Igbo culture should be accurately portrayed and understood independent of the West.

Through Achebe’s portrayal of the reality of Africa, readers develop an understanding of the traditions of Igbo culture by understanding their intentions.

“In fairness to Umuofia,” their complete narrative, encompassing both their vitality and their shortcomings, “should be recorded” (Achebe 12). In line with the principles of cultural relativism, Achebe maintains that to understand a society, one cannot simply observe it -- their perception must be informed by a more profound education about the people, their customs, and their circumstances (Rosaldo). By clarifying that Umuofia “never went to war unless its case was clear and just,” Achebe challenges the Western stereotypes of Africans as ruthlessly savage and needlessly violent (Achebe 12). In doing so, Achebe puts meaning behind the culture and identity Westerners see in front of them. Despite setting fire to Okonkwo’s compound after his exile, his friends “had no hatred in their hearts” (Achebe 124).

This seemingly destructive practice is instead motivated by “the justice of the Earth goddess,” demonstrating a different interpretation of violence, justice, and consequences (Achebe 124). Presenting the beliefs behind certain traditions allows them to be considered in a greater, more accurate context. Achebe’s full narrative counters assumptions formed solely through observation, as these assumptions ignore the personal nuances of Igbo culture to the point where there is no longer cultural understanding, but instead an echo chamber of prejudice and judgment.

Consequently, Achebe evaluates traditions in the context of their own society rather than in comparison. In contrast to many white Western novels like Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, Achebe is less partial and biased in his writing, refraining from seeking an intended judgment of Igbo culture as simply good or bad (Achebe CNN).

Rather, Achebe chooses to present what is there and what is indisputably true -- he emphasizes authenticity.

16

In completing a full narrative of the community, Achebe does not shy away from depicting the more grotesque, startling undertones to Igbo tradition, as this adds a new depth of understanding that cannot be gained from a mere discussion of the culture’s lighter elements. Following a mutilation in accordance with traditional customs, the deceased ogbanje child “would think twice before coming again, unless it was one of the stubborn ones who returned, carrying the stamp of their mutilation -- a missing finger or perhaps a dark line where the medicine man’s razor had cut them” (Achebe 79). In acknowledging the violence inherent in this tradition, Achebe portrays the unfortunate ogbanjes as monstrous creatures.

However, perhaps such practices help societies cope with tragedies. Achebe ultimately wants to convey to the rest of the world the Igbo people’s humanity. As in any human society, there exist flaws, which Achebe wholeheartedly acknowledges in his discussion of the Igbo peoples’ adherence to tradition. After Okonkwo’s exile from Umuofia, Obierika laments, “Why should a man suffer so grievously for an offense he had committed inadvertently?” (Achebe 125). While many traditions, like those of celebration, instill a sense of community and sustain order, Obierika finds that customs pertaining to punishment serve no meaningful purpose in the society.

The injustice of this long-standing tradition and the questioning that follows demonstrates the potential for change. Achebe’s recognition of the Igbo community’s imperfections ultimately makes them more human, illuminating individual voices within the clan and highlighting a trajectory towards progress.

The Western missionaries tell a one-sided story that portrays the Igbo community as inferior to their own beliefs to justify colonization, and ultimately glorify their practice. Upon his arrival, the missionary Mr. Brown immediately degrades and rejects the Igbo religion: “All the gods you have named are not gods at all… There is only one true God” (Achebe 146). The missionary’s feeling of superiority in his Christian beliefs comes with a devaluation of traditions that have existed for centuries. The colonizers’ failure to understand Igbo culture portrays the colonized community’s pre-existing customs as empty and meaningless, providing an excuse for colonization, as “the children of light were locked in mortal conflict 17

with the sons of darkness” (Achebe 184). The contrast of light and darkness paints the picture of a white savior, one in which the colonizers are given the benevolent task of delivering peace, stability, and joy to a savage, inhuman Africa (Conrad 118).

As such, the subsequent demonization of the Igbo community renders the colonizers honorable heroes braving a “battlefield” against a senseless opposition (Achebe 184).

This

heroic

depiction perpetuates the stereotype of the Igbo people as

two-dimensional and lacking identity -- a community one could only write “a reasonable paragraph” about (Achebe 209). The District Commissioner directly contradicts Achebe’s full narrative of the Igbo community by “cutting out details” and ignoring pre-existing customs (Achebe 209). Without details, the world is left with a shallow narrative told by an outsider depicting the Igbo community for what it seems to be: violence and inferiority. Tragically, the culture’s intricacies are unimportant in a predetermined Western narrative of the community, for which the District Commissioner “had already chosen the title” (Achebe 209).

Through the ideology of ethical relativism, the colonizers impose their supposed superior beliefs onto the community, ultimately resulting in a fractured society with little direction and a diminished identity. Judging Igbo customs in comparison to their own, the missionaries imprison “men who had offended against the white man’s law” (Achebe 174). Having previously witnessed the thriving vitality of many Igbo traditions and the structure they provided the community, the destruction of Igbo culture is made particularly tragic for the reader. This unjust punishment for simply following century-long traditions, coupled with the social transformation of the clan to the point where it is “barely recognizable,” disheartens the reader and makes the days free of Western influence feel all the more distant and missed (Achebe 182). There is a tone of loss and desperation as the community’s past energy is compared to its current state: “Umuofia was like a startled animal with ears erect, sniffing the silent, ominous air and not knowing which way to run” (Achebe 196). Tragically, despite Umuofia’s power among the local clans, they are helpless in their own colonization as a result of confusion, instability, and despair.

18

Telling the experience of colonization from the perspective of the colonized, Achebe reveals a darker reality that is often masked by the supposed religious and economic benefits of Western domination. Over the course of their colonization, the reader witnesses the Igbo community’s demoralization in terms of the missionaries’ twisted narratives and the clans’ own loss of hope. The Igbo community, like colonized populations across the globe, ultimately finds themselves powerless to the white man’s demands. Achebe’s novel challenges the accepted heroism of colonizers and poignantly concludes that “the white man… has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart” (Achebe 176). Blame is rightfully placed on outsiders for the clan’s disunion and downfall, reflecting a foil to the proclaimed charitable intentions of colonization. Achebe contrasts the underlying victimization of the colonized to the subsequent glorification of the colonizers -- unfortunately, most of the world only sees the latter. The perspectives of narrators influence our understanding of stories. Accounts of colonialism are all too often written by the victors. However, by shifting our gaze to the affected community, colonizers’ desperate excuses no longer bear any meaning; instead, we see colonization for what it really is: an unjustified looting and dismantling of culture.

19

Works Cited Achebe, Chinua. (2009, April 27). Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe on CNN's 'African voices'. YouTube. https://youtu.be/aoi9ANh0l6c.

Achebe, Chinua. (2019). Things Fall Apart. Penguin Publishing Group.

Conrad, Joseph. (2007). Heart of Darkness. Penguin Books.

Rosaldo, Renato. (2015, November 12). Of Headhunters and Soldiers. Markkula Center

for

Applied

Ethics.

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/of-headhuntersand-soldiers/.

Trinitarian Bible Society. (2010). The Holy Bible: containing the Old and New Testaments.

Wainaina, Binyavanga. (2019, May 22). Binyavanga Wainaina Tells Us 'How To Write

About

Africa'.

NPR.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/22/725808622/binyavanga-waina ina-tells-us-how-to-write-about-africa.

20

21

Social Darwinism During the Gilded Age An Aristocratic and Egocentric Misconception Emma Burd

In this essay, Emma Burd takes a poignant stab at rethinking how the Gilded Age is commonly portrayed and viewed. She combines Social Darwinism, theories on the government’s role in the economy, and the corruption of robber barons to provide a freshly critical take on an influential

period

in

American

history.

Burd’s

prose,

wisely

interspersed with quotations from diverging perspectives, conveys her eagerness and courage to push back against conventional viewpoints of the Gilded Age. Written with nuance and maturity, this historical analysis serves as much-needed social and economic commentary with lasting relevance today.

he Gilded Age is an era remembered for its vast wealth inequality, with part of the population living in stately mansions and the rest living in tenement houses on the verge of starvation. But was the period’s rapid economic growth worth the degradation of the nation’s entire lower class?

In short, I’d say no.

Social Darwinists, however, would tell you otherwise. The theory of Social Darwinism, influenced by scientist Charles Darwin’s 1859 On the Origin of Species, was rooted in the ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest. According to these theories, species that are best suited to their environments prosper and reproduce, while those ill-equipped struggle and eventually die out.

Natural selection dictates that species must evolve in order to survive.

Fundamentally, the ideas behind Social Darwinism were linked to Darwin’s work with biological species. But inserting the scientific theory into a social setting, accredited to British philosopher Herbert Spencer, was something quite different.

Spencer promoted the idea that the wealth disparity seen during the Gilded Age was a result of Social Darwinism. He claimed that people who were at the top of society were there because they worked for it, giving them a rightful superiority over those who found themselves floundering at the bottom.

According to Spencer, those of lower social status should be left to fend for themselves. If they can’t survive, it is their own fault. Gee, that’s some tough love, Spence.

22

In Spencer’s book The Man Versus the State, he criticized the way in which the federal government helped Margaret, a woman of low social status, allowing her to get on her feet and have children of her own. Spencer referred to her children as “. . . idiots, imbeciles, drunkards, lunatics, paupers, and prostitutes,” saying that “the county records show two hundred of her descendants [who] have been criminals.”i In an ideal world for Social Darwinists, Margaret would not have received federal help and would have instead struggled to survive because of her supposed inferiority. She therefore would not have been able to have the “tarnished” offspring Spencer depicted in his writing.

Social Darwinism was used to justify more than just wealth inequality. Along with these other issues—sexism and racism being the most prominent—came the inherent defiance of the constitutional right to equality. Social Darwinism was a true testament to the hallmark corruption of the Gilded Age. Despite their many shortcomings, Spencer’s beliefs quickly gained traction.

Many prominent sociologists, most notably William Graham Sumner in the United States, were attracted by the social usage of Darwin’s theories.

As shown in Margaret’s case, Social Darwinists not only believed in propelling those at the top of society, but also actively worked to ensure a lack of mobility for those at the bottom. They advocated against government interference with the economy, disagreeing with any attempt to help lower classes by creating better working conditions or raising labor wages.

In his collection The Challenge of Facts and Other Essays, Sumner stated, “What we mean by liberty is civil liberty, or liberty under law; and this means the guarantees of law that a man shall not be interfered with while using his own powers for his own welfare.”ii The lack of government intervention that Sumner outlined, known as a laissez-faire economic system, allowed for an excessive amount of power and wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a select few business moguls during the Gilded Age. John D. Rockefeller, who controlled the oil industry, and Andrew Carnegie, who held the monopoly in steel production, were two examples of such tycoons.

23

These men were often referred to as “robber barons” to emphasize the corrupt nature of their accumulated riches.

Over time, robber barons began to amass more power than the government itself. It made sense, therefore, that Social Darwinists and upper-class citizens didn’t want the government to interfere with the economy—that would have meant a concession of power.

Not only does the concept of Social Darwinism degrade human beings into mere organisms, it is incredibly myopic, morally unscrupulous, and selfishly-driven.

My criticism of Social Darwinism, then, is truly a criticism of industrial capitalism itself. Or, at the very least, the industrial capitalism that was seen during the Gilded Age—a system organized in a way that disproportionately helped the rich and hurt the poor.

The fundamental issue with the theory of Social Darwinism was its motive to cover up and rationalize the immense wealth inequality that pervaded the nation at the end of the nineteenth century. In their exploitation of revolutionary scientific theory, Social Darwinists worked exclusively for their own political and economic gain, obliterating those less fortunate than themselves in the process. i

The Man Versus the State (London and Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1884), 110.

William Graham Sumner, The Challenge of Facts and Other Essays (n.p.: New Haven : Yale University Press, 1914), 26. ii

24

Bibliography Sumner, William Graham. The Challenge of Facts and Other Essays. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1914.

The Man Versus the State. London and Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1884.

25

26

Balancing Prejudice with Progress in The Sun Also Rises Noah Weinberg

Submitted for MKA’s 20th Century American Literature class, this piece, as its title implies, pits prejudice against progress. Noah Weinberg’s well-crafted writing clearly and succinctly describes the opposing forces of a rising Jewish presence in the upper echelons of society with the ingrained bias of the old-money elite. In an era of rapidly increasing Anti-Semitism, there are valuable lessons to take away from his interpretation of Hemingway’s classic.

ontemporary culture is defined by the mingling of diverse groups of people and the blatant prejudice and discrimination they face. Social groups are no longer exclusively confined by religious identity or skin color, although offensive jokes and stereotypes remain abundant. Today, many people interact with friends, coworkers, and even family members who are vastly different from themselves but struggle with accepting and appreciating others’ backgrounds. Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises portrays the Ivy League’s reckoning with its growing religious diversity in the 1920s. Princeton University, Jake, and Bill represent high society’s struggle to balance long-held Anti-Semitism with an increasingly multicultural, integrated world, a poignant reflection of societal issues in the 1920s and enduring modern challenges.

Robert Cohn encounters a feeling of unwantedness at Princeton, a symbol of the backlash against the growing opportunities afforded to Jews in the 1920s, and a major departure from the safe bubble he grew up in. As Jewish students, many of whom were exceptionally intelligent, began to attend Ivy League schools, they struggled to break into exclusive social clubs founded upon generational connections. On paper, Jewish exclusion from elite institutions had ended, but the acceptance of Jews among old-money WASPs was far harder to achieve. As a result, Cohn must “. . .counteract the feeling of inferiority and shyness he had felt on being treated as a Jew at Princeton” (11). He unsurprisingly faces significant prejudice at Princeton, always feeling as if he does not belong at an institution his ancestors never would have been allowed to attend. Like many Jewish Americans who isolate 27

themselves in safe, homogeneous communities, Cohn does not experience Anti-Semitism before entering the Ivy League. Cohn’s story is common: “No one had ever made him feel he was a Jew, and hence any different from anybody else, until he went to Princeton” (12). Jews had long avoided the harsh reality of Anti-Semitism in mainstream America out of fear, but their entrance into top academic institutions and the upper levels of society in the early 20th century made this prejudice unavoidable. Similarly, in being awarded many opportunities unavailable to Jews just years earlier, Cohn is forced to confront the lingering hatred at Princeton that is only magnified by the religious integration underway.

In another example of the cultural shift upheaving 1920s society, Cohn maintains friendships with Jake and Bill despite their constant Anti-Semitism, a reminder of the harsh reaction to the rapid integration taking place in the upper echelons of American society. By hurling insults at Cohn and believing dangerous stereotypes, Jake represents the privileged white male struggling to grapple with the inclusion of a Jew in his friend group. In his parents’ generation, many Jews would not have even encountered people like him, but the modern world of the 1920s is rapidly changing. Jake, speaking about Cohn with the recognition that Jews are advancing in society, professes, “He looked a great deal as his compatriot must have looked when he saw the promised land” (29). To his point, Jews are leaving their comfort zones and gaining access to opportunities long promised to white Christians of wealth and social stature. However, Jake’s comment is meant to express the resentment the old guard feels towards Jewish progress in America, and his snide observation reflects the general attitude of the old-money class during the 1920s. Jake feels entitled to all of life’s gifts, and he certainly does not want a Jew taking his high place in the world. Bill further remarks, “Well, let him not get superior and Jewish” (101). This irrelevant comment belies the friendship the young men have developed while reflecting the discomfort Jake and Bill feel with the growing Jewish presence in upper-class society. Jake and Bill, symbols of the old-school elite, accept Cohn, a representation of the rising Jew, as a friend, but

28

their persisting Anti-Semitic beliefs and behaviors portray the clashing forces of the old and the new.

Clearly, the characters and the Princeton University of the early 20th century witness a growing tide of Jewish inclusion, and their discomfort is shown by the espousal of persisting Anti-Semitic beliefs. Minority groups always face bigotry when they go places unintended for them, and today’s world is rife with examples of the retaliation the underprivileged face as a result of any advancement. Simply, the modern conundrum is the balance between increasing integration and its fierce, hateful backlash.

29

30

Frankenstein, Hayek, and the Dangers of Knowledge Nicholas Baum

Nicholas Baum, in an analysis of Mary Shelley’s famed Frankenstein, questions the importance of human traits, such as a thirst for knowledge. By pitting intellect against ignorance, Baum examines mankind’s natural instinct to be curious. This interesting paradox leaves us with the timely consideration of whether we know too much as individuals and as a species. Looking forward, Baum’s crisp writing ultimately poses as many questions as it answers.

onsidering all the traits that one can exhibit, which is the most desirable? If one were to ask Victor Frankenstein, protagonist of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, as well as Friedrich Hayek, a classical liberal political theorist, both would respond with knowledge. Knowledge is the mental source through which we can understand the world around us, interact with its many societal forces, and be better equipped to enjoy the experiences and materiality at our disposal. All human beings are motivated by its acquisition to achieve the aforementioned results, yet just as knowledge in great quantity is capable of being powerful, knowledge to an even greater quantity is capable of being poisonous. The search for knowledge and the expansion of the explicit conscience is what guides all human beings in their passions, yet such conduct, explains Friedrich Hayek in The Constitution of Liberty, tends to lead to the discovery of new fields of untouched knowledge, full of unintended consequences. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, the protagonist Victor can attest to this fact, as his mission to create a human companion inadvertently engenders a monster, and along with it, a set of dangerous ramifications. Indeed, it would be the process of the summation of his knowledge that leads to the tragic repercussions of where such knowledge is absent.

Firstly, human beings are inherently compelled to further summate the knowledge they possess and are passionate for, an extensive project that instills meaning; this is very much the case for Victor Frankenstein, who embarks on the perilous and gruesome escapade of creating a creature that occupies his total attention and time. In subjects that they are passionate for, individuals find meaning in the acquisition of knowledge surrounding them, usually, as Friedrich 31

Hayek examines, because “Man prides himself on the increase in his knowledge,” (Hayek 26). The same applies to Victor Frankenstein, whose research in natural philosophy compels him to create a man. This task, despite his “loathing” of the “workshop of filthy creation” (Shelley 34), provides him with the intellectual pursuit that doubles as his temporary meaning in life, explaining, “I seemed to have lost all soul or sensation but for this one pursuit,” (33). Something must be truly meaningful if it captivates an individual and compels them to search for it even in spite of their emotions and humanity. In this instance, the creation of the would-be-monster provided, in every respect, a purpose for the young Frankenstein, who later recapitulates, “I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body” (35). However, as any reader of the novel knows, the purpose that Frankenstein chased after would have dangerous repercussions. Hayek foreshadows, “as a result of what he himself has created [an increase in knowledge], the limitations of his conscious knowledge and therefore the range of ignorance… have constantly increased” (26).

As the circumference of knowledge grows, new fields and subjects devoid of reasoning and logic are uncovered, resulting in an absence of intellectual exploration and the only knowledge regarding them being their existence; Frankenstein attests to this state of academics, as the knowledge he acquires to construct a living being seemingly uncovers another multifarious dilemma. When pushing the boundaries of intellectual exploration, even the most educated hypothesis is far from ascertaining something never reviewed or discussed by humanity. When new things are discovered, it is impossible for them to exactly fit within the realm of human expectation, as said expectation is derived from what humans already know. This is expertly shown by the expectations of Frankenstein, who, upon witnessing the product of his extensive labor, recognizes the unintended consequences of his innovation: “I had desired it [the creation of the monster] with ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart” (36).

Frankenstein’s ambitions and acquisition of knowledge uncovered the new dilemma 32

of the hideous nature of the monster, and what to do with it. With such repugnant feelings replacing the passion that cemented his meaning, the young scientist must now confront the ignorance of his motives. And in truth, he has no means of circumventing such ignorance, either. Frankenstein, working within the realm of what humanity already knows, can not envision the repercussions because he does not have the faintest idea of what those repercussions are, or what they are borne out of. As Hayek stresses, “If we are to understand how society works, we must attempt to define the general nature and range of our ignorance concerning it.

Though we cannot see in the dark, we must be able to trace the limits of the dark areas” (23). Frankenstein cannot see in the dark; he, like everyone else, is unable to envision any of the consequences of his pursuit of knowledge. In such a situation, it is a matter of what could be best deduced as a consequence, given what is already known. In attempting to understand the world around us, we must make educated guesses even if they are certain to not come true, as they serve to rectify our inherent ignorance. The ignorance procured from Frankenstein’s experiments, however, holds especially grim consequences.

When knowledge and a lack thereof collide, there will always be the potential for dangerous repercussions unpredicted and unexplainable by the standards borne out of human knowledge; Frankenstein is a recipient of such repercussions, with his failure to ascertain the nature of his creation alongside the failure of not learning from his ignorance ultimately delivering the tragic outcome that the novel is premised upon. After he creates the monster, a new dilemma is uncovered regarding what to do with it, and how to treat it. Frankenstein is horrified by his creation, and later in the novel, must confront it for the death of his brother. That, in and of itself, is a consequence cloaked by ignorance, but the monster goes on to explain, “‘There was none among the myriads of men that existed who would pity or assist me; and should I feel kindness towards my enemies? No: from that moment I declared everlasting war against the species, and, more than all, against him who had formed me’” (95). The greatest consequence of the ignorance of the new dilemma of ethics and issues from the creation of the monster is the monster’s avowal of hatred 33

to the human race and Frankenstein in particular. It is precisely this motivation of the monster that leads to the deaths of everyone that Frankenstein cherishes, and ultimately himself. In the end, the acquisition of knowledge that served as a purpose for Frankenstein was the very thing that killed him; his ignorance of the newly uncovered fields was what guided such an outcome. But regardless, he has the opportunity to make amends. Hayek writes, “Human reason can neither predict nor deliberately shape its own future. Its advances consist in finding out where it has been wrong” (41). Frankenstein has no means of predicting the outcome of his creation; to do so is to employ reasoning derived from human knowledge to something that humans lack knowledge about. Instead, as Hayek suggests, he could have learned from the consequences of his actions and quickly improved on them, which is applicable to all human advancement. Nonetheless, Frankenstein’s losses compound and his actions do not seem to change. He forfeits the chance to abide by the monster’s request and create him a wife, and fails to heed the monster’s warning that “I shall be with you on your wedding-night”, leading to the death of Elizabeth (121). Frankenstein is a victim of his ignorance: both in terms of the predestined ignorance that arrives when new fields are discovered, and the willing ignorance of not learning from reality.

In total, Victor Frankenstein is a victim of his ambition to attain a certain knowledge, as that knowledge, when conflicting with forces that he nor anyone else is capable of understanding, ultimately invokes a phenomenon out of his control that punishes him greatly. Like any other individual, Frankenstein finds meaning in the acquisition of knowledge in the topic he is interested in, natural philosophy.

However, as he pushes the bounds of intellectual exploration, he uncovers dilemmas and new fields awaiting knowledge to explain them, but lacking it. This state of discovery, in which a field is exposed but devoid of reasoning and knowledge, is ignorance. It is ignorance that leads Frankenstein to his tragic downfall, a lack of apprehension for any of the byproducts of his toils. Ignorance, both justifiable in that he pioneers through the dark, and unjustifiable, in that he willingly navigates into further casualty. As Hayek reminds us, our advancement as a species comes 34

from learning from our ignorance. Although we are compelled to further summate our knowledge without knowing the consequences of its acquisition, that should not disincentivize us from constantly pursuing progress. We may be ignorant, but we still have our sense of reasoning. As long as we acknowledge our ignorance and utilize our reasoning to respond to it, we can have completely different outcomes from that of Frankenstein.

35

Works Cited Hayek, Friedrich A. The Constitution of Liberty. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960.

36

37

Power’s Moral Crossroads A Path to Pride or a Path to Integrity?

Maggie Horn

In this essay, Maggie Horn uses the literary classics of Antigone, a play by the ancient Greek tragedian Sophocles, and “Shooting An Elephant,” a 1936 essay by British satirist George Orwell, to contemplate the virtue of political power. With dazzling prose, Horn masterfully juxtaposes the concept of a moral compass with authority’s corruptive nature. In today’s power-hungry world, Horn’s fresh take is a subtle prompt to modern leaders to not forgo what is right in favor of what grants them more control.

here is unmistakable irony in the observation that those in political power often feel most powerless in their decision making. Monarchs and generals may seem invincible by day but become slaves to their own circumstances by night.

Both Sophocles’ Antigone and George Orwell’s “Shooting An Elephant” demonstrate how the same circumstances that lift one to power can also constrain them.

Although the pressures of political authority may direct some to a reprehensible path, resisting these same pressures can distinguish others as most commendable.

While surrendering to the temptations of political power forces Creon and Orwell’s narrator to choose pride over virtue, defying political control allows Antigone to pursue the moral highroad, at whatever the cost.

Creon and Orwell’s need to maintain an image of themselves as strong authoritarians allows their vanity to override their moral compass. During a fatal clash between King Creon’s nephews, Eteocles and Polynices, Polynices fights against Creon’s rule. Following both nephews’ deaths, Creon publicly declares dire consequences for anyone who attempts to carry out an honorable burial for Polynices. As his niece, Antigone, recounts, “Whoever disobeys in the least will die, his doom is sealed: stoning to death inside the city walls!” (Sophocles 60). The King’s decree not only discourages possible insubordination, but establishes his word as law. However, when Antigone rebels against his edict, the ruler of Thebes falters in his resolution: “It’s a dreadful thing to yield. . . but resist now? Lay my pride bare to the blows of ruin? That’s dreadful too” (Sophocles 116). Although aware of the virtuous alternative, Creon nevertheless sentences Antigone to death

38

in an effort to maintain his appearance as a resolute leader. Presented with a similar moral emergency, Orwell’s narrator, a caucasion police officer in Burma, must decide whether or not to shoot an elephant that has run on a wild rampage.

He initially has no intention of shooting the elephant and recognizes killing it as murderous. However, Orwell’s narrator senses the thrilling anticipation of the onlookers and worries that by letting the elephant live, he will humiliate himself as a white authoritarian. Moments before his shots would ring loud throughout the Burmese land, the narrator reflects, “I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys” (Orwell). Although referring to race and colonization instead of ancient monarchies, the Burmese police officer recognizes an important truth: gaining power can mean losing control. Both Creon and Orwell’s narrator become powerless to their morality in an attempt to preserve their pride.

In contrast to Creon and Orwell’s capitulation to self-image over compassion, Antigone’s commitment to her moral principles enables her to resist political power, even at the risk of death. Following Polynices’ passing, Antigone’s deepest instincts compel her to bury her brother honorably. She exclaims, “if I had allowed my own mother’s son to rot, an unburied corpse—that would have been an agony!”

(Sophocles 82). Above all else, Antigone prioritizes her principles of family and honor. However, the young woman’s commitment to her values becomes even more pronounced when pressured by the hand of political power. While Creon asks her if she feels shame for her offense, she tells the King of Thebes, “Not ashamed for a moment, not to honor my brother, my own flesh and blood” (Sophocles 84). Met with the threatening force of a king, Antigone once more proves her loyalty to her values. By remaining resolute on her conviction of right and wrong, Antigone’s pursuit of the moral highroad leads to her tragic demise. As Creon condemns her to death,she reflects to herself, “And now he leads me off, a captive in his hands . . . denied all joy of marriage. . . deserted so by loved ones . . . I descend alive to the caverns of the dead” (Sophocles 106). Antigone’s determination to follow her moral compass causes her to lose all that she would have gained by yielding to Creon’s 39

demands.

Faced with a moral crossroad, both Creon and Orwell’s narrator choose to ignore their moral instincts in favor of preserving their self-image. While their efforts to protect their vanity are not in vain, their decisions to yield to the temptations of power reveal true weakness. In contrast, Antigone’s self-sacrifice ultimately preserves one element which even the greatest political power in the world cannot destroy: her integrity. Both Sophocles and George Orwell uncover the ability of power in turning leaders from virtue to the darkness of enthralling pride, a pattern demonstrated throughout world history and today. Nonetheless, their stories too reveal the utter invaluableness of integrity in preserving not only one’s own morals but also one’s identity.

40

41

Changing the Vision Balancing Personal Beliefs with Society’s Obsession with Religion Kelsey Freeman

In this piece, Kelsey Freeman compassionately navigates Richard Wright's 1940 novella “Bright and Morning Star”—the story of a woman slowly losing her faith in Christianity. Freeman analyzes with excruciating detail each factor that contributes to the main character Reva’s spiritual transformation, while also exploring the broader significance of religion in forming community. Freeman’s dogged analysis and meticulous reading of the text will prompt readers to examine the foundations of their own belief systems and will impart a greater appreciation for the power of change.

he short story “Bright and Morning Star” by Richard Wright conveys a woman’s path through religion that is framed in an optimistic yet daring light.

Wright uses unabashedly optimistic diction in the first half of the short story to juxtapose the main character’s griefs and temptations and build on the idea that religion serves as a constant affirmation for the unbearable trauma that “believers” endure. However, as Reva ventures to live life through the lens of “her vision,” her faith slowly decomposes as she replaces it with another, more powerful one. Her optimistic tone slowly turns into deceptive and vengeful diction, as Wright addresses society’s often all-consuming obsession with religion.

Though Reva claims that her religion is her own, as she often uses the term “her vision” to symbolize her faith, she is negligent about understanding that her devotion to faith may be a disease rather than a cure. Her religion blocks her judgment and allows her to create a warped fantasy of grief and societal struggles to the point where she can no longer connect with Johnny-Boy and Sug and feels trapped by the world around her. She views the cold white mountain as a beacon of temptation because it is a constant reminder that darkness, through the form of systemic racial imbalances, presides over her life. In an effort to ignore the prevalent issues of race, she immediately shifts her focus to a more optimistic light.

She questions whether or not the mountain symbolizes the final test in Armageddon, as if society’s race relations is nothing but one’s improbable Judgement Day: “To her that white mountain was temptation, something to lure her from her Lord, a part of the world that God had made in order that she might 42

endure it and come through all the stronger...” Though her words have a dark undertone, the surface of her thoughts is completely driven by her faith, almost insinuating that this faith also dictates her entire outlook on the world. Wright’s daring dialect when discussing themes of race relations is a reflection of the unbalanced power distributions imprinted on society that naturally place blacks at the bottom of the beaker and white men at the top of the mountain. The strength that resides in her faith, however, does not last forever. Her faith gradually grows weaker as temptation from the outside world becomes a barrier between her and her faith: “a cold white mountain… swims into her vision and shatters her songs and their spell of peace.” Eventually, the temptation that simply served to test the strength of her devotion slowly swallows her whole and forces her to “fling into the light of another grace.” As she opens her mind to a new perspective after attempting to convince her sons to adapt to her own vision, she completely changes course and develops a new strength for a darker vision.

Thus, Wright raises an interesting question about the stability of religion itself, alluding to the idea that in order to live a life of purpose, one has to identify themselves with a group of people or a cause to feel as though they are worthy of receiving something more than what they are given. In the second half of the short story, Wright uses more fiery diction as Reva questions her original vision and shifts her energy into a new, darker faith that is beginning to consume her. She feels a “hunger” towards the people that go against her faith, despite ignoring that she, too, was one of those people. This shift in the narrative reinforces the idea that people have an innate desire to feel connected to their surroundings and find a purpose, despite living a seemingly normal life. Rather than nurturing and developing a strong relationship with her vision in the same way that she did in the first half of the story, she is “flung” into this new vision in a sloppy and unorthodox way to illustrate that Reva is simply a product of society’s obsessive culture towards religion. Her new faith is unstable because she has not taken the time to truly understand what she claims to believe in anymore. The final line truly highlights this claim and echoes the idea that because Reva was so willing to believe 43

something and have faith in a vision that was foreign to her, she is not truly able to decipher between the two: “while toiling under a strange star for a new freedom the old songs would slip from her lips with their beguiling sweetness.” Reva finds herself unable to disconnect from her past faith, revealing that her visions that she claims to be so passionate about, though they juxtapose themselves in the story, are tangled in Reva’s brain. This analysis allows readers to question whether Reva was truly passionate and devout in her faith in the first place, or if her religion was simply a uniform that she wore in hopes of obtaining the luxury to identify with a crowd under one belief system.

44

45

Creative Features

Most essays written by MKA students are done so in the traditional

five-paragraph

format

complete with a thesis

statement and topic sentences. This format is so widely-used for a reason—it easily relays arguments to a reader in a concise manner with a strong emphasis on facts and evidence. However, sometimes a format that steps outside the box of traditional essay-writing can feel like a breath of fresh air to a reader, who gains a deeper understanding of the writer’s argument due to a nontraditional format. Both Lauren Schier’s “On How We Teach Poetry” and Riley Rendino’s “Transformative Justice” do just that.

Schier’s

transcribed

speech

on

the

strengths

and

weaknesses of the traditional teachings of poetry obtains greater clarity due to its TedTalk format. Created for MKA’s Utopia: Theory and Literature class, Rendino used the format of a play to offer a raw, emotional, and deeply personal take on a transformative justice circle that makes the reader feel that they are practically in the same room as the participants of the circle.

On How We Teach Poetry Lauren Schier

he desire to [create] anything begins out of a basic human desire to express oneself.” (Zapruder) What does creation look like to you? Flashes of a famous painting, familiar melodies from songs, or perhaps frames from your favorite movies in which an actor you admire captures all of your attention in the beauty of a scene? To create is to express emotion.

Now, I ask, what comes to mind when I ask you about poetry? Do you see glimpses of William Shakespeare’s works? Feel the weight of the sincere tones conveyed in Edgar Allen Poe’s? Do you remember the dreaded unit of Julius Caesar?

Macbeth? Poems and stories that flow with themes of murder, abandoment, and death? “The desire to write anything begins out of a basic human desire to express oneself.”

Matthew Zapruder, a famous American poet with multiple poetry awards to his name has used this statement to show what he believes the true purpose of poetry is. He, much like I, has come to see poetry as a gateway into the imagination.

And despite this, he’s seen the craft be put down and neglected by those who believe its purpose will escape them, and thus, the hours of work poets put into their poetry goes underappreciated and ignored.

Referencing Julius Caesar and Macbeth, I have no doubt in my mind that some of you had flashbacks to those months of class where we had to sit through endless sidenotes to understand the language. I remember the reluctance of the entire class when we had to read passages aloud, perform scenes with each other for grades, and after that, write analytical essays to convince our teachers that we 46

knew the text better than anyone else. But in those months of repetitive study, the words lost their spark. They came to be seen as tools to advance our vocabulary; they lost their meaning in the story to brief summaries that removed their purpose altogether. And so, poetry has become a method of intense analysis rather than a gateway to complex conversation.

And this process isn’t one of a kind: it is all too common. The purpose of the literature, its genuinity and vulnerability, is lost because we are taught to “tie the poem to a chair with rope/ and torture a confesion out of it” (Billy Collins). Poets are aware that their art is abused by the audience that encounters it. There is no mercy that comes when diagnosing a poem. It is brutal and wicked: words are ripped apart and removed from their greater meaning. It is a battlefield upon which Reader goes against Poet, and the poet, left utterly defenseless in their work, is thoroughly bled from their words, for the sake of simplicity and immediate understanding. Those words that were carefully picked and placed hundreds of years ago became so foreign to our own language that we forgot they meant more than a grade for some essay. We lost the ability to encounter the words, to truly understand their role in the story they created. These great pieces of literature became an interrogation of meaning, the goal of which was to come to a conclusive answer when, in reality, simple conclusions are not how complex stories end.

And because of how much distance we put between ourselves and the text, poetry takes on this air of mystery and complexity that makes it hard to approach.

Other than graded readings and essays, people remove themselves from lyrical literature altogether. “It seems that our inability to grasp why we are reading poetry… is what makes poetry so hard to understand.” (Zapruder) Why do poets cloud their intentions with such wordplay that leaves the reader in wonderment and confusion? Why are their words “just on the verge of knowing” instead of clear, concise sentences? (Zapruder) What we look for in all literature, after years of being in classes where analysis and simple conclusions are held in high regard, are definitive answers to the world’s most elusive questions.

47

I believe the first step to approaching those questions is to rework the way we approach poetry. Poets.org, a website dedicated to broadcasting new poems and archiving old ones, addresses this issue in their article “How to Read a Poem.” How do we teach the future generations that “the goal of careful reading is… to take up… an interpretive question that has more than one answer?” (How to Read a Poem).

I believe we should begin in a place where our language and the poem’s are one in the same. We should start with commonalities rather than differences, and we should teach that poems come in various sizes, shapes, and colors, that there is not one right way to write a poem. Maybe then we would stop holding poetry at such a distance and give the art a deeper connection to the reader. Poetry is not meant to be simple. As Amanda Gorman, our latest, and youngest, inaugural poet, brilliantly stated in a CNN interview, poets have to “work in words” (Interview with Amanda Gorman). Although this limitation should lessen their art’s impact, these words hold power that images cannot express, and this power— the ability to craft words into story, into movement and emotion— is a feat only poetry can achieve.

When we delve into the details of a poem, and discover the meanings behind the words, in no way should we tell the story that it ought to be something else.

Poetry is not something to attack and pry apart, it is something to listen to, to read over and over, to discuss and let fester until it blooms, until you’ve tasted the words enough to know them as your own. As an art form, Poetry has lost itself to the tide of convenience. People have deemed it too complicated to approach, and others only see it as a barrier that stands between them and good grades.

We are quick to praise visual art for being so appealing to the eye. It is temporary, intricate, and simple enough for anyone to look over and appreciate. The arts in their entirety, as of now, are fleeting creatures that blaze quick and simmer quicker. To think that we’ve abused the majesty of our words, taken away and constricted the ways in which we express emotion, doesn’t seem very human at all.

Poetry is the connection between spoken word and art. It contains the stories of those who find themselves in need of a voice. We cannot continue to confine it to its 48

creators, and strip it of its complex vulnerability. So once again I ask, what is poetry to you?

49

Works Cited Collins, Billy. “Introduction to Poetry.” The Apple That Astonished Paris, University of Arkansas Press, 1996.

Cooper, Anderson, and Amanda Gorman. “Hear from Poet Laureate Amanda Gorman Who Stole the Show at Inauguration.” CNN Style, Cable News Network,

20

Jan.

2021,

www.cnn.com/videos/style/2021/01/21/amanda-gorman-poet-laureate-interviewinauguration-vpx.cnn.

Hirsch, Edward. “How to Read a Poem.” Poets.org, Academy of American Poets, 26 Nov. 2007, poets.org/text/how-read-poem-0.

Zapruder, Matthew. Why Poetry. Ecco, an Imprint of HarperCollinsPublishers, 2018.

50

51

52

Transformative Justice Riley Rendino

ontext: The African Leadership Academy (ALA), in Johannesburg, South Africa, is a two year boarding school composed of 200 students from all over the African continent. This semester, 20 U.S.-American students from The School for Ethics and Global Leadership (SEGL) have joined the campus.

Incident: In a closed dorm room, Ryan, a white student from SEGL, sang the N-word while rapping along to music with his ALA counterparts. His ALA peers, Jon and Adama, were outraged and shocked. They left the dorm room immediately to tell their friends. Within minutes, word had spread of Ryan’s actions on a school-wide WhatsApp group.

Setting: Ryan, Jon, Adama, Alex (a SEGL peer), Amélie (the director of SEGL at ALA), and Dean H. (head of ALA) sit in a circle in the administrative block.

Dean H.: Thank you for taking the time to be here today. This conversation is necessary for the healing and growth of our combined SEGL and ALA community.

Amélie: Dean H. and I will facilitate today’s conversation. Before we get started, I would first like to introduce today’s talking stick. You can only speak when you are passed the stick. This way we can further our discussion in a smooth manner. With your help, we have also created a list of ground rules so that conditions exist for people to be held accountable for their actions. Dean H., when I pass you the 53

speaking stick, would you like to read those ground rules? Amélie passes the talking stick to Dean H. Dean H.: Yes, thank you, Amélie. First, in this conversation, we will listen and speak with respect. Second, what happens in this room stays in this room. Third, only one person will speak at a time. Does anyone have additional ground rules they would like to add? If not, can we all agree on these conditions?

Everyone nods in agreement Dean H. passes the talking stick to Amélie.

Amélie: Great. Before we hear from you, Ryan, I would appreciate it if Jon, Adama, and Alex could all share how they are feeling and maybe highlight some of the impact Ryan’s actions have had on them. Amélie passes the talking stick to Adama.

Adama: I can start. Well, Ryan, your words hurt me. When someone—especially a white U.S.-American—says a derogatory word or statement, I want you to understand it not only hurts in the moment, but it brings up years of pain. Not only my pain, but the pain of my people. Pain my relatives endured when the French colonized the Ivory Coast. Pain my mother faced as a child. It reminds me that no matter how smart I am or how hard I work, I will always be seen as inferior by people like you.

Dean H.: Thank you, Adama. But, do you mind staying away from terms like “people like you”? Instead, expand on this idea.

Adama: Yeah. By “people like you,” I mean Westerners. Adama passes the talking stick to Jon.

54

Jon: I would love to expand further on some of the ideas Adama touched on. First, having the SEGL students join campus has already been an adjustment for ALA students. When SEGL students leave campus on a field trip and we don’t, it’s a reminder that white Westerner privilege will always be present. Ryan, when you say the N-word—and few repercussions follow—it reminds me that, although this is my school and my continent, you will always have special privilege and I never will.

Jon passes the talking stick to Amélie.

Amélie: Alex, would you like to speak? Amélie passes the talking stick to Alex.

Alex: Yes, thank you. Ryan, I feel like my experience at ALA has been altered drastically because of your actions. Previously relaxed conversations with ALA students are now icy. When the SEGL U.S.-American students gather in the quad, we can’t miss the disappointed and disapproving looks from ALA students and faculty. Although I’m Mexican-American and have had a totally different upbringing than you, my identity still seems inextricably linked to yours. To have my experience affected because of your words doesn’t feel fair. Alex passes the talking stick to Dean H. Dean H.: Thank you all for getting us started. Ryan, would you like to share how you feel? Dean H. passes the talking stick to Ryan.

Ryan: It really upsets me how fast this situation has escalated. When Jon and Adama ran out of the room and made the situation public, I never had the chance to talk about what I did or explain myself. Now, everyone is mad at me and I feel completely ostracized. And, well, I said it in a song, so why is everyone so heated?

Alex: It doesn't matter where, when, or how you said it!

Amélie: Alex, let’s allow Ryan to finish his thoughts. Remember the talking stick.

55

Ryan: I never said anything to be malicious. I still don’t understand why that’s so bad.

Dean H.: Ryan, I encourage you to think not only of the intention behind your words but also the impact. Can you share a little bit about your school at home so we can better understand the environment in which you’ve been socialized?

Ryan: Well, I am from Minnesota. I go to my local public school. Most of my friends are white but I have a few black friends. They actually gave me the pass to say the N-word while singing songs. That’s what I wanted to explain, but I never had the chance. But, I understand now that my intent doesn’t matter—the harm it caused does. Ryan passes the talking stick to Jon. Jon: Ryan, I’m sorry we ran out of the room and created a toxic environment for your growth. We weren’t trying to cancel you, but we were shocked and angry. Jon and I can hold ourselves accountable so we no longer feed into cancel culture.

However, just because you said it in a song, doesn’t make what you said excusable.

You are right—the intention doesn’t matter because the word still holds weight. It does in any context. Jon passes the talking stick to Ryan.

Ryan: I was never told that before. I’m sorry. Ryan passes the talking stick to Amélie.

Amélie: Jon, Adama, Alex—what do you want for yourselves and other ALA/SEGL students? What will repair the harm done and help our intersected community grow as a result? This may take time to imagine, but by not rushing, we will grow.

Everyone sits silent for a few minutes.

Amélie passes the talking stick to Adama.

56

Adama: Usually, when I talk to a familiar SEGL student, I see a friend. But now after Ryan’s actions, when I see a group of SEGL students, I can't help but see privilege and whiteness. And that's scary. And now, when SEGL students talk to us, they may be uncomfortable. They might feel attacked. However, I believe that's okay. I think we need to emphasize, and perhaps explain to the SEGL students that sometimes they need to feel discomfort to understand and learn. Adama passes the talking stick to Jon. Jon: I agree. I would also ask that Ryan, and maybe some other white SEGL students, be given a list of resources to help educate themselves on African conolization and anti-racist work. Jon passes the talking stick to Alex.

Alex: I like those suggestions but would also ask that we highlight the diverse backgrounds of some SEGL students like myself. Alex passes the talking stick to Jon. Jon: That’s a really nice idea, Alex. Maybe you could do a Mexican-American night similar to the cultural nights we have with ALA students? And Ryan, to you specifically, I ask you to take the time with the resource list to unlearn things you may have learned in your school back home. Jon passes the talking stick to Dean H. Dean H.: I like these ideas. As directors of SEGL and ALA, Amélie and I will hold ourselves accountable for putting this resource list and Mexican-American night in practice. Is there anyone in your community, Ryan, who could hold you accountable for your unlearning? Dean H. passes the talking stick to Ryan.

Ryan: Yes. I came to SEGL at ALA to meet friends with different backgrounds than mine. I may have hurt some of those friends and I don’t expect them to do the work for me. But, I still have my SEGL teachers to hold me accountable. Also, my ALA 57

roommate Max, has offered to hold me accountable, as well. I assure you—I will not make the same mistake twice. Ryan passes the talking stick to Adama.

Adama: Great. Do you mind me asking—could we have weekly check-in meetings like this until the end of the semester to help further repair the harm done? I feel better than I did walking in but there are still topics I want to discuss. I care about you Ryan, even though you hurt me, and want to track the progress you are making. Adama passes the talking stick to Amélie.

Amélie: This sounds awesome, if everyone else agrees.

Everyone nods in agreement.

Amélie: Okay. I want to be conscious of the next period starting but thank you again for taking the time to be here.

Everyone leaves until the next week.

58

Reflection When Ryan said the N-word last year, my SEGL peers and I were outraged. We were upset by his ignorance. We were upset he hurt our friends. We were upset that his actions reflected poorly on the U.S. Most of all, we were upset he had not been expelled for saying the N-word.

My teacher, Amélie, did not want to resort to punitive measures, like expulsion, and instead felt SEGL would be the best place for Ryan to learn. If he was sent back to his home in Minnesota, he would not have the same opportunity to learn from the harm he caused. Additionally, ALA peers would not have the chance to converse with Ryan so they could heal from his actions.

A week later, after getting caught with drugs and a taser (a clear violation of the school’s honor code), Ryan was expelled. However, he was not sent home for saying the N-word, which rubbed many of my peers the wrong way. To be honest, until I wrote this transformative justice circle, it rubbed me the wrong way, too.

At the time, I didn’t understand why Amélie felt so strongly about keeping Ryan in South Africa. I now understand that it was not because she tolerated Ryan’s harm-doing, but because she wanted to repair it. By having him engage in a transformative justice circle, which was Amélie’s long-term intent, Ryan would have had the chance to take accountability for his wrongdoing. He would have had the opportunity to face his actions head-on and understand the repercussions his words had on the SEGL and ALA communities. Instead, he was sent home and our community never had the chance to move past Ryan’s actions in a healthy manner. I wish we did.

Writing this transformative justice circle enabled me to reflect on the incident in a manner I hadn’t before. I had to think about who Ryan harmed and the different 59

reasons each person was affected by his words. I then had to think about who could hold Ryan accountable in his life. Despite the anger the SEGL cohort felt towards Ryan, I realized that any of us would have wanted to hold him accountable for his growth.

After organizing who should be present for the circle, I had to think about what each person would want done to repair the harm. How they would want Ryan to respond. This was hard, as I was writing from different perspectives. However, in South Africa, I had separate conversations with Jon and Adama about how they felt after the incident. I drew from these emotional conversations when depicting what they would want from Ryan. Finally, after getting all the major plot points down, I was able to think creatively, bringing in fundamental tools used in transformative justice circles (talking stick, ground rules, etc). Overall, the process of writing my transformative justice circle opened my eyes to a new world of call-in culture rather than call-out culture.

60

61

Social Media and the Consequences of Unfree Speech Nicholas Baum

It is not particularly common for accredited think-tanks, such as the Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics, to publish the work of high school students. It is therefore a great testament to sophomore Nicholas Baum’s writing that he has accomplished this feat not once, but twice. “Social Media and the Consequences of Unfree Speech,” his first article written for the Mises Institute, published on February 4, 2021, is a scathing social commentary on the threat social media poses to open dialogue. With sharp, incisive language and candid wit, Baum reminds readers that the engagement of opposing opinions is necessary for growth—and that society faces stagnation without it.

he magazine Variety published an article on January fifth about an interview between Rowan Atkinson, the actor behind the “Mr. Bean” character, and the British outlet Radio Times. In the midst of the lengthy interview, which saw Atkinson discuss a host of different topics pertaining to his role, a brief and personal opinion was given about the dangers to free discussion and civil discourse that social media may induce: “The problem we have online is that an algorithm decides what we want to see, which ends up creating a simplistic, binary view of society. It becomes a case of either you’re with us or against us. And if you’re against us, you deserve to be ‘canceled.’”

As expected, of all the substantive topics that Atkinson would go on to discuss in greater detail, it would be this relatively short dialogue that grasped the attention of many on social media. In fact, the tweet from Variety advertising the article received over 1,000 replies. Responses ranged from stating that social media provides a justice-driven “accountability culture”, to people downplaying it as a myth, to some saying that social media profiles are exposed to a wide range of opinions, but that “most of those opinions suck”.

62

The truth, however, is far from the contradicting excuses offered by the masses of Twitter; and the implications of this truth are dangerous to the notion of free speech and the necessity it poses.

The Problem with Social Media Firstly, it is true that every social media platform utilizes an algorithm to customize the user’s “feed” with content they enjoy. The problem with this lies in not necessarily that the social media platform may be biased, but that the math employed in every user’s experience delivers solely content they agree with, whether it be the profiles and accounts they follow or the recommended posts that meet the standards of the user’s liking.

From the “explore” page of Instagram to the recommended videos on YouTube, the services we’re increasingly using in our daily lives are solely reaffirming our beliefs while actively preventing opposing ones from coming to our attention. By only being exposed to one viewpoint, the effects of free discussion’s absence are evident: the allowance of misinformation, the incentives for intolerance, and the suspension of progress.

The Growth of Misinformation By allowing opinions to go uncontested and incontrovertible, being welcomed by a presupposed audience that already agrees with it, there’s no source of pushback that may debunk or at least challenge such a claim.

Given that the opinion is received by a group of users already in agreement with it, it’s most likely that such an audience won’t commit to the same intellectual rigor of its certification if it were to be received by a group in disagreement with it. The audience will want to accept it as truth, and do so.

63

Every ideology and school of thought has a means through which the world is viewed and events are judged. The adherence to solely one likely negates important viewpoints in others. If only one is consulted, an almost certainly misleading or downright fallacious opinion is engendered. Without any opposition, this incorrect view persists unchallenged, and as we’ll see later, grows into resentment. In the absence of free exchange and a diversity of thought, flawed and defective opinions may be pushed which are otherwise easily refutable or debunkable by opposing ideologies. As John Stuart Mill writes: “There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation.”

An opinion is true if its withstands every challenge or refutation made to it. In an online setting where users can limit their audience, block accounts, and protect comment sections, which extends to most platforms, the marketplace of ideas where truth is determined is substituted for the enclosed rally of participants around an opinion treated dogmatically.

The Grounds for Intolerance In the absence of the exposure to a given opinion, a resentment of such an opinion or its author may grow. If the only sources consulted and ideas entertained are the ones that are already agreed with, sheer ignorance conflicts with the reality of the opposition.

Discussion only amongst those in agreement has an inherent tendency to corrupt.

Devoid of any challenge, such opinions held in unanimity will be treated as a dogma, an irrefutable idea whose deviation from is intolerable. This is far more likely to occur than many are willing to recognize. When the people you surround

64

yourself with are all passionately ascertained with a given idea, such an environment necessarily grows a prejudice for those who disagree.

Worse yet, the homogenous dialogue of a particular idea may be symptomatic of the first issue, if the ideas of the opposition were to be mistaken by the group. This “straw man”, unable to be corrected, could easily lead to passionate disdain if misinterpreted to a certain extreme.

Regardless, if much of one’s daily or online exposure is exclusively to a group of people with a set of common opinions, people without such opinions may be seen as mysterious and threatful, with a lack of subjection to them or their opinions undermining their entitlement to one.

This is what Atkinson alludes to when saying, “It becomes a case of either you’re with us or against us. And if you’re against us, you deserve to be ‘canceled.” Social media allows us to surround ourselves with agreement, which further alienates those who disagree. Without anyone representing the opposite opinion to defend themselves, a single point of view is compounded, and as it further summates without any refutation, those who may disagree appear to be much more villainous and impersonal than they likely are. The more passionate or ubiquitous an opinion is, the less likely that those that adhere to their own beliefs and happen to disagree are tolerated. It’s a matter of human nature.

The Obstruction of Progress Alongside the free discussion of differing ideas, no matter how popular or unpopular these given ideas may be, the end product is ultimately progress. This is because as different conceptions and opinions are exchanged and debated, it’s more often than not that the truer ones are uncovered.

This is similar to the first consequence, in that misinformation grows. Whereas fallacies emerge when only a single idea is preached, the truth emerges when many 65

ideas are debated. This is no accident. Recall that an opinion is true if it withstands every counterargument and refutation; in fact, it’s the only way of certifying its truth. Therefore, the only way to determine what is objectively true in any number of issues is to allow the freedom of discussion and debate in the first place.

Furthermore, the “truth” doesn’t have to be some scientific fact or physical observation that we normally associate with the word. In this regard, it more often than not means a “moral truth”, a notion or belief that society rigorously holds on to. Some of the most unpopular opinions of their times would become these moral truths. The notions of classical liberalism; ideals we now think of as necessities such as liberty, equality, and democracy, were considered radical and saw little support for most of mankind’s history.

The free market economy, and along with it the principles of voluntary cooperation and free trade, found its roots in the mightily unpopular movements of peasants to cities, ditching the centuries-long order of feudalism. Society progresses when these would-be moral truths are granted the environment to be debated. Over time, unpopular opinions are tested and, if they prove applicable to the state of man or society, and if they withstand every challenge to it, are embraced.

If we consider progress as the discovery of truth, then it can only be through the tolerance of many viewpoints and exchange of many ideas that such progress can be obtained.

The Threats of Social Media The culture and way of life enabled by social media platforms has come into direct conflict with the principles of free discussion, embarking on a path of dogmatic ideals and misinformed users.

66

Algorithms are coded that effectuate an echo chamber of unfollowed posts and users nevertheless in agreement with the profile, enabling hours in content of further reaffirmation. The user holds the ability to restrict who sees their profile, content, and is allowed to respond to it, creating the aforementioned homogeneous discussions and communities multifariously adorning platforms.

Other users can be blocked; blotted out of existence with their content and beliefs, and along with it their access to the blocker’s content and beliefs, restricted from sight, sparring any inconvenience found in viewing such content. What these tools of social media enable is a culture where the user is constantly right and the opposition constantly wrong. Where every tap, click, and like validates what’s already believed in while ostracizing what’s already refuted.

It’s a culture of self affirmation and vindication, of an insulated access to the wide array of intellectual opinions for the sake of the amplification of clung-to beliefs. To the detriment of the occupants of such insulated spaces, those in outspoken disagreement must be careful or else they’ll be “cancelled”, the consequence of negating one of the occupants’ many dogmatic and irrevocable ideals.

There’s an unprecedented supply of misinformation; no one is there to refute it.

There’s been scarce a time of greater polarization and divisiveness; the direct result of people choosing to expose themselves only to the conveniences found in agreement. Society seems to be regressing, not improving; because opinions go unchallenged, with divisiveness around different truths replacing unity around fundamental beliefs.

Although not much can be done to assuage this societal retroversion, the largest impact must come individually. For the sake of the furtherment of truth, tolerance, and progress; have a discussion with that friend or family member you disagree with. Read a post or article about the other side of the issue. Choose to respectfully 67

engage the opposing viewpoint that may be nagging you. Most importantly, use sparingly the many tools social media offers to limit free expression.

68

69