Day: October 1, 2023

Decolonial Theory in Literature

Decolonial Theory in Literature is a critical framework that aims to challenge and dismantle the Eurocentric perspectives dominating the study of literature.

Introduction to Decolonial Theory in Literature

Decolonial Theory in Literature is a critical framework that aims to challenge and dismantle the Eurocentric perspectives dominating the study of literature. It aims analyze and deconstruct the historical legacies of colonialism and imperialism pervading literary texts. Instead, it focuses on how these narratives perpetuate power imbalances and marginalize non-Western cultures and voices. By centralizing the experiences and knowledge of colonized peoples, Decolonial Theory in Literature endeavors to create a more inclusive and equitable understanding of literature and its societal implications.

Criticism Against Decolonial Theory in Literature
  1. Essentialism: Critiques argue that decolonial theory may occasionally oversimplify the experiences and identities of colonized or marginalized groups, reducing them to overly broad categories. This oversimplification can overlook the intricate diversity and complexities within these experiences and identities.
  2. Overemphasis on Victimhood: Some scholars contend that decolonial theory tends to portray colonized peoples exclusively as victims, potentially perpetuating a sense of powerlessness and neglecting to recognize their agency and resistance in the face of colonial oppression.
  3. Political Bias: Critics assert that decolonial theory can exhibit political bias, prioritizing a particular ideological agenda over objective literary analysis. This may lead to the prioritization of activism over scholarly rigor.
  4. Lack of Engagement with Aesthetics: Certain literary analysts argue that decolonial theory primarily concentrates on the political and ideological aspects of literature, often disregarding the aesthetic and artistic qualities of literary works. This can result in a narrow interpretation of literature.
  5. Oversimplification of Colonialism: Critics suggest that decolonial theory may oversimplify the intricate historical and socio-political contexts of colonialism and imperialism. It might not comprehensively address the nuances characterizing various colonial experiences.
  6. Lack of Interdisciplinarity: Some scholars argue that decolonial theory within literature often remains within the boundaries of literary studies, failing to engage adequately with other disciplines such as history, anthropology, or sociology. This limited scope could hinder a comprehensive understanding of the colonial past and its enduring impacts.
  7. Inclusivity and Representation: Critics point out that tensions may arise within decolonial theory regarding who has the authority to represent marginalized or colonized groups. Concerns regarding representation and inclusion surface, raising questions about who qualifies as a legitimate voice in decolonial discussions.
  8. Eurocentric Critique: Some critics argue that decolonial theory might unintentionally replicate Eurocentric models of critique and evaluation by placing Euro-American literature and theory at the center of analysis, even when scrutinizing colonialism.

It is important to note that these criticisms do not invalidate the significance of Decolonial Theory in Literature in challenging dominant narratives. Rather, they contribute to ongoing debates within the academic discourse, fostering a more nuanced understanding of the theory’s strengths and limitations.

Examples of Decolonial Theory

There are numerous examples of decolonial theory being applied to literary works, including plays, poems, novels, and short stories. Here are a few examples:

WorkCritiquing Through Decolonial Theory in Literature
The Tempest by William ShakespeareDecolonial theorists analyze the depiction of Caliban, a colonized indigenous man, as savage and subhuman, highlighting how it reflects broader patterns of portraying indigenous peoples as inferior and in need of civilization.
The Inconvenient Indian by Thomas KingDrawing on decolonial theory, King critically examines Western literature and popular culture’s portrayal of indigenous peoples, revealing how these representations reinforce colonial power structures and perpetuate harmful stereotypes, perpetuating the marginalization of indigenous communities.
The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot DiazDecolonial theorists praise the exploration of power dynamics through language and its recognition of the lasting impacts of colonialism and imperialism in the Caribbean, shedding light on the ongoing effects on people’s lives in the region.
The Grapes of Wrath by John SteinbeckDecolonial theorists analyze the portrayal of the dispossession of indigenous peoples in California, illustrating how white settlers benefited from this dispossession, and thus, contributing to the critique of colonial legacies embedded in the narrative.
The Sun Is Also a Star by Nicola YoonDecolonial theorists appreciate the exploration of race, ethnicity, and immigration intersections, recognizing the ongoing legacy of colonialism in the United States and its influence on the lives of the characters, particularly in the context of diasporic experiences.
Keywords in Decolonial Theory in Literature

Here are some keywords in decolonial theory literary theory:

  1. Colonialism: This theory centrally concerns itself with the enduring legacy of colonialism, examining its pervasive effects on societies, cultures, and individuals.
  2. Power: Decolonial theorists actively explore power relations, scrutinizing how colonialism has profoundly shaped hierarchies of power and privilege.
  3. Marginalization: This theory firmly highlights the experiences of historically marginalized groups, particularly indigenous peoples and people of color, drawing attention to the persistent ramifications of their marginalization across time.
  4. Resistance: This theory places significant emphasis on resistance to colonialism and the proactive development of alternative modes of thought and action.
  5. Hybridity: This theory aptly acknowledges the intricate interplay of cultures, recognizing how colonialism has engendered novel forms of cultural expression and hybridity.
  6. Agency: Decolonial theorists actively underline the agency of colonized peoples in their resistance and challenges against colonialism, emphasizing the cruciality of acknowledging such agency in comprehending colonialism and its consequences.
  7. Epistemology: Decolonial theory in literature critically interrogates the production and legitimization of knowledge within colonial contexts, endeavoring to foster alternative epistemologies rooted in the experiences and perspectives of marginalized communities.
  8. Identity: This theory actively examines the construction of identities and how colonialism has significantly shaped and reinforced specific identity categories.
  9. Language: Decolonial theorists diligently scrutinize the ways in which language has been harnessed to bolster colonial power structures, while also recognizing its potential to challenge and subvert those very structures.
    1. Global South: It prominently highlights the experiences of countries and peoples situated in the global South, shedding light on how colonialism has profoundly shaped their historical trajectories and contemporary realities.
Suggested Readings
  1. Ahmad, Aijaz. In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures. Verso, 1992.
  2. Bhambra, Gurminder K., et al. Decolonising the University. Pluto Press, 2018.
  3. Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Translated by Richard Philcox, Grove Press, 2004.
  4. Mignolo, Walter D. The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy, Territoriality, and Colonization. University of Michigan Press, 1995.
  5. Nandy, Ashis. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self Under Colonialism. Oxford University Press, 1983.
  6. Quijano, Anibal. Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America. Nepantla: Views from South, vol. 1, no. 3, 2000, pp. 533-580.
  7. Said, Edward. Culture and Imperialism. Vintage Books, 1994.
  8. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present. Harvard University Press, 1999.
  9. Young, Robert J.C. Postcolonialism: An Historical Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell, 2001.

Decolonial Literary Theory

Decolonial literary theory is a critical framework that seeks to challenge and dismantle the enduring legacies of colonialism in the realm of literature and literary studies.

Introduction to Decolonial Literary Theory

The term “decolonial” comes from “decolonize,” which means to undo or challenge the effects of colonialism. Decolonial literary theory is a critical framework that seeks to challenge and dismantle the enduring legacies of colonialism in the realm of literature and literary studies. Drawing from postcolonial theory, it focuses on questioning dominant Western narratives, exposing power imbalances, and centering the voices and experiences of marginalized communities and cultures.

By deconstructing the colonial underpinnings in literature, this approach aims to promote a more inclusive, equitable, and diverse understanding of literary production and interpretation, encouraging a broader appreciation of the world’s diverse literary traditions.

Meanings of Decolonial Literary Theory
AspectMeaning
Critique of Colonial LegaciesExamining lasting colonial impacts on culture and literature.
Empowerment of Marginalized VoicesAmplifying marginalized and indigenous voices in literature.
Language as ResistanceUsing language to challenge colonial power dynamics.
Intersectional AnalysisConsidering how oppression intersects in literature.
Challenging Binary ThinkingQuestioning fixed identities and promoting hybridity.
Decolonization of MethodologiesAdopting culturally sensitive research methods.
Resistance and LiberationUsing literature for resistance and envisioning liberation.
Global RelevanceAddressing colonial legacies worldwide.
Decolonial Literary Theory: Origin, Theorists, Works and Arguments
Origin of Decolonial Literary Theory:
  • Emerged in the late 20th century as a response to the enduring impact of colonialism on literature and culture.
  • Rooted in postcolonial theory but emphasizes the necessity of decolonizing both content and methods of literary analysis.
Prominent Decolonial Literary Theorists:
  1. Frantz Fanon:
    • Author of The Wretched of the Earth (1961).
    • Pioneered the concept of decolonizing the mind and highlighted the psychological effects of colonialism on literature and identity.
  2. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o:
    • Known for his work Decolonizing the Mind (1986).
    • Advocated for African writers to return to their native languages and challenge the dominance of European languages in literature.
  3. Gloria Anzaldúa:
    • Author of Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza (1987).
    • Focused on the borderlands as a space where identities and languages intersect, challenging colonial borders.
Key Works in Decolonial Literary Theory:
  1. The Location of Culture by Homi Bhabha (1994):
    • Explores hybridity and the third space as strategies for subverting colonial discourse.
  2. Coloniality at Large: Latin America and the Postcolonial Debate edited by Mabel Moraña, Enrique Dussel, and Carlos A. Jáuregui (2008):
    • Examines the impact of coloniality on Latin American literature and culture.
  3. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples by Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999):
    • Discusses the importance of indigenous voices and methodologies in decolonizing research.
Key Arguments in Decolonial Literary Theory:
  • Language and Identity: It emphasizes the role of language in shaping identities and calls for the revitalization of indigenous languages in literature.
  • Borderlands and Hybridity: It focuses on liminal spaces where cultures intersect, challenging fixed identities and binary thinking.
  • Coloniality and Power Structures: It analyzes how colonial legacies continue to influence power dynamics in literature, representation, and academia.
  • Resistance and Decolonization: It encourages writers to engage in decolonial praxis by challenging colonial narratives and promoting indigenous voices.
  • Intersectionality: It recognizes that decolonization efforts intersect with other social justice movements, such as feminism and anti-racism.
Principles of Decolonial Literary Theory

Decolonial theory is a complex and multifaceted field of study, but there are several key principles that are central to its approach:

PrincipalExplanation
Critique of Colonial LegacyDecolonial literary theory critically examines how colonialism has shaped literary canons, genres, themes, and the representation of cultures and identities within literary works.
Empowering Marginalized VoicesIt seeks to give voice to the experiences and perspectives of marginalized and oppressed communities that have been historically silenced or overshadowed by colonial power structures.
Unveiling Power ImbalancesThis theory aims to uncover and address the power imbalances present in literary production and reception, exposing Eurocentric biases that have influenced literary scholarship.
Promotion of Diversity and InclusivityThis approach emphasizes the importance of recognizing and embracing the diversity of literary traditions worldwide, moving beyond a narrow Western-centric lens.
IntersectionalityThis theory acknowledges the intersections of various forms of oppression, such as race, gender, class, and sexuality, and explores how these intersections influence literary representation.
Decentering the WestIt challenges the dominance of Western literary theories and critiques, advocating for the integration of non-Western perspectives and traditions in literary studies.
Decolonizing Literary PedagogyThis theory calls for a reevaluation of literary curricula and pedagogical approaches to ensure a more inclusive and decolonized teaching of literature.
Engagement with Indigenous KnowledgeDecolonial literary theory recognizes and respects indigenous knowledge systems and oral traditions, encouraging their inclusion in the study of literature.
Interrogating Language and TranslationIt explores the implications of language use and translation in literary works, considering how power dynamics affect linguistic representation and understanding.
Resistance and TransformationDecolonial literary theory highlights literary works that resist colonial ideologies and imaginaries while envisioning alternative narratives and pathways towards societal transformation.
Suggested Readings
  1. Anzaldúa, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Aunt Lute Books, 1987.
  2. Bhambra, Gurminder K., et al. Decolonizing the University. Pluto Press, 2018.
  3. Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Translated by Richard Philcox, Grove Press, 2004.
  4. Mignolo, Walter D. The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Duke University Press, 2011.
  5. Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o. Decolonising the Mind: The Politics of Language in African Literature. Heinemann, 1986.
  6. Quijano, Aníbal. Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America. Nepantla: Views from South 1.3 (2000): 533-580.
  7. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. Vintage Books, 1979.
  8. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. Routledge, 2014.
  9. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present. Harvard University Press, 1999.

Objectification in Literature & Literary Theory

Objectification, as a theoretical term, refers to the process of reducing individuals, typically women, to the status of objects or commodities, stripping them of their subjective agency and inherent humanity.

Etymology of Objectification

The term “objectification” gained prominence in late 20th-century philosophical and sociological discourse, notably through Simone de Beauvoir’s groundbreaking work, The Second Sex published in 1949. Martha Nussbaum further developed this concept in her book Sex and Social Justice published in 1999.

Rooted in these academic contributions, objectification refers to the reduction of a person, often women, to the status of an object, frequently for sexual or aesthetic gratification, effectively stripping them of their subjective agency and humanity.

This concept continues to be a focal point in gender studies, ethics, and social psychology, shedding light on the intricate interplay between culture, power dynamics, and individual identity.

Meanings of Objectification
AspectMeanings
CharacterThe portrayal of characters as mere objects or symbols, devoid of depth or agency, often for thematic or allegorical purposes.
NarrativeThe treatment of elements within a narrative, such as objects, settings, or even other characters, as symbolic entities with reduced autonomy serve primarily as tools for storytelling.
AuthorialThe distancing of the author from the narrative or characters, emphasizes the text’s autonomy over the author’s personal perspective or intention.
Readerly ObjectificationThe process by which readers may reduce characters or elements in a text to simplistic stereotypes or overlook their complexity, potentially reinforcing objectification themes present in the work.
Feminist LiteraryThe examination of how literature can reinforce or challenge societal objectification of women, often addressing issues of gender, power, and representation.
Postcolonial LiteraryThe analysis of how literature can perpetuate or critique colonialist objectification of cultures and people, explores themes of identity, imperialism, and resistance.
Definition of Objectification as a Theoretical Term

Objectification, as a theoretical term, refers to the process of reducing individuals, typically women, to the status of objects or commodities, stripping them of their subjective agency and inherent humanity.

It often manifests in media, literature, or societal practices where individuals are portrayed primarily for their physical attributes or as mere symbols, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and power imbalances.

In feminist theory and critical discourse, objectification is analyzed as a mechanism that perpetuates gender inequality and dehumanizes individuals through the lens of object-like qualities.

Objectification: Theorists, Works, and Arguments
Origin of Objectification:
  • The term “objectification” gained prominence in late 20th-century philosophical and sociological discourse, particularly through feminist theory and critical scholarship. It emerged as a crucial concept in discussions about the dehumanization and reduction of individuals, especially women, to the status of objects or commodities.
Key Theorists:
  • Simone de Beauvoir: A pioneering feminist philosopher, Simone de Beauvoir, is renowned for her seminal work, The Second Sex (1949). In this groundbreaking book, she critically examined the objectification of women in society and delved into its profound implications for gender inequality and women’s oppression.
  • Martha Nussbaum: A contemporary philosopher, Martha Nussbaum, explored the concept of objectification in her essay “Objectification,” which is a part of her book Sex and Social Justice (1999). Nussbaum’s work focuses on the philosophical dimensions, especially concerning issues of sexual objectification and the ethical concerns it raises.
Notable Works:
  • Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex (1949): This groundbreaking work provides a comprehensive analysis of this concept regarding women in society. It explores how women have historically been treated as objects and delves into the implications of this objectification on gender inequality and women’s liberation.
  • Martha Nussbaum’s Sex and Social Justice (1999): Nussbaum’s essay “Objectification” in this book offers a philosophical examination of the concept. It explores various aspects of objectification, including its ethical dimensions and its effects on human dignity and justice.
Key Arguments in Objectification Theory:
  • Reduction to Object Status: It involves the reduction of individuals, particularly women, to the status of objects or commodities. It emphasizes their physical attributes over their agency or humanity, treating them as objects of desire, adornment, or utility.
  • Reinforcement of Gender Inequality: It perpetuates gender inequality by reinforcing harmful stereotypes and power imbalances. It limits the opportunities and autonomy of those who are objectified, contributing to their marginalization and devaluation.
  • Necessity of Recognition and Challenge: Recognizing and challenging it is essential for achieving social justice, gender equality, and human dignity in contemporary society. This involves not only critiquing objectification in media, literature, and everyday life but also advocating for changes in societal norms and practices that perpetuate it. It is a critical step towards dismantling oppressive systems and fostering a more equitable and just society.
Objectification and Literary Theories
  1. Objectification is a central concept in feminist literary theory. Feminist scholars analyze how literature often objectifies women by reducing them to mere symbols, sexual objects, or stereotypes. They examine how female characters are portrayed and how their agency and complexity are often overshadowed by their physical attributes or roles in relation to male characters. Feminist literary theory aims to expose and challenge these objectifying representations to promote a more nuanced and equitable portrayal of women in literature.
  2. In Marxist literary theory, objectification can be seen in the way characters are depicted as commodities or as products of their social and economic circumstances. Literary works are examined for how they reflect and critique capitalist systems that objectify individuals by reducing them to their economic worth or social class.
  3. Marxist theorists explore how literature can reveal the dehumanizing effects of objectification within a capitalist society.Postcolonial literary theory examines how literature can perpetuate or critique the objectification of cultures and peoples in the context of colonialism and imperialism. It explores how colonial narratives often reduce colonized people and their cultures to exotic stereotypes or objects of conquest. Postcolonial theorists seek to deconstruct these objectifying representations and reclaim agency and identity for marginalized groups
  4. Psychoanalytic theory, as developed by Sigmund Freud and later theorists, delves into the psychological aspects of objectification. It explores how literary works can manifest and analyze the unconscious desires and objectifying tendencies of characters. This perspective can reveal how objectification operates on a psychological level, affecting both the characters within the narrative and the reader’s interpretation.
  5. Objectification also plays a role in reader-response theory, which focuses on how readers engage with and interpret literary texts. Readers may objectify characters or elements within a text by reducing them to simplistic symbols or judgments. Reader-response theorists examine how different readers may approach objectification differently and how it influences their interpretation of the text.
Objectification in Literary Criticism
  1. by Margaret Atwood (1985): In Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, objectification is a central theme. The story is set in a totalitarian society where women are reduced to their reproductive function and treated as objects of the state. Literary critics have explored how the author critiques patriarchal power structures and religious extremism through the objectification of women. This novel is often analyzed in feminist literary criticism for its portrayal of female characters as objects of control and reproduction.
  2. by Bret Easton Ellis (1991): Bret Easton Ellis’s controversial novel American Psycho offers a complex examination of objectification, particularly through the lens of violence and consumerism. Literary critics have debated the extent to which the novel objectifies women and the protagonist’s obsession with appearances and materialism. The work has been scrutinized within the context of postmodernism and the dehumanizing effects of consumer culture.
  3. by Amy Tan (1989): In Amy Tan’s novel The Joy Luck Club, objectification is explored in the context of cultural identity and generational conflicts. Critics have examined how the characters grapple with being objectified or stereotyped based on their Chinese heritage by both Western society and their own families. The novel is often discussed in the context of postcolonial and multicultural literary criticism, highlighting issues of cultural objectification and assimilation.
  4. by Toni Morrison (1987): Toni Morrison’s Beloved explores this with reference to African American slaves during and after the era of slavery. Critics have analyzed the novel’s portrayal of the dehumanizing effects of slavery and how characters are objectified by both the institution of slavery and society at large. Literary criticism of Beloved often intersects with postcolonial and African American literature studies, emphasizing the importance of reclaiming agency and humanity in the face of historical objectification.

In each of these works, literary criticism can examine how it operates on various levels, whether through gender, cultural, or racial dynamics. Critics may explore how these authors challenge or reinforce

Suggested Readings
  1. Bartky, Sandra Lee. “Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power.” In Feminism and Foucault: Reflections on Resistance, edited by Irene Diamond and Lee Quinby, 61-86. Northeastern UP, 1988.
  2. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, 1990.
  3. hooks, bell. The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. Washington Square Press, 2004.
  4. Nussbaum, Martha C. Sex and Social Justice. Oxford UP, 1999.
  5. O’Neill, Onora. “A Simplified Account of Human Capability.” In Women, Culture, and Development: A Study of Human Capabilities, edited by Martha C. Nussbaum and Jonathan Glover, 39-58. Oxford UP, 1995.
  6. Scheman, Naomi. Engenderings: Constructions of Knowledge, Authority, and Privilege. Routledge, 1993.
  7. Wolf, Naomi. The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women. HarperCollins, 1991.
You may read more on Theoretical Terms below:

Oedipus Complex in Literature & Literary Theory

The Oedipus Complex, a foundational concept in psychoanalytic theory developed by Sigmund Freud, is a theoretical term that describes a child’s complex set of emotions and desires during the phallic stage of psychosexual development.

Etymology of Oedipus Complex

The term “Oedipus Complex” finds its etymological origins in ancient Greek mythology and Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. It derives from the Greek mythological figure Oedipus, who, unwittingly, fulfilled a prophecy by killing his father and marrying his mother.

In Freud’s psychoanalytic framework, the Oedipus Complex represents a crucial developmental stage in a child’s psychosexual development, typically occurring during the phallic stage. It involves a child’s unconscious desire for their opposite-sex parent and a sense of rivalry and hostility toward their same-sex parent.

The complex plays a pivotal role in Freud’s understanding of early childhood sexuality and the formation of the individual’s personality and gender identity. While the term “Oedipus Complex” maintains its historical nomenclature, it remains a foundational concept in psychoanalytic theory, despite being critiqued and modified by subsequent psychoanalytic thinkers.

Meanings of Oedipus Complex
AspectKey Meanings
Character Motivation and Conflict– Psychological Depth: In literature, characters often grapple with Oedipal desires and conflicts. These desires can manifest as complex relationships with parental figures, leading to internal struggles, guilt, and moral dilemmas. This psychological depth adds complexity to character development and plot dynamics.
Family Dynamics and Narrative Complexity– Intricate Family Dynamics: The Oedipus Complex can introduce intricate family dynamics in literary works, where characters’ interactions with parents and the resolution of Oedipal conflicts contribute to the narrative’s complexity. This can be seen in works where characters’ motivations are intertwined with their parental relationships.
Exploration of Gender and Identity– Gender and Identity Analysis: Literary theorists have used the Oedipus Complex to examine themes of gender and identity in literature. It provides a framework to analyze how characters’ desires and identifications with parental figures influence their development and understanding of gender roles.
Psychological Depth and Symbolism– Symbolic Exploration: Literature often employs Oedipal themes symbolically to delve into the depths of human psychology. The Oedipus Complex serves as a metaphor for broader themes of desire, power, and the human psyche, enabling authors to explore the intricacies of the human condition.
Subversion and Deconstruction– Challenging Norms: Some literary works subvert or deconstruct traditional Oedipal narratives, challenging Freud’s theories and societal norms. These subversions can lead to innovative storytelling and critical examinations of psychoanalytic ideas.
Archetypal Patterns– Universal Themes: This is part of the broader exploration of archetypal patterns in literature. It reflects universal themes related to family, identity, and the human experience, making it a valuable lens for literary analysis.
Definition of Oedipus Complex as a Theoretical Term

The Oedipus Complex, a foundational concept in psychoanalytic theory developed by Sigmund Freud, is a theoretical term that describes a child’s complex set of emotions and desires during the phallic stage of psychosexual development. It centers on the child’s unconscious attraction to the opposite-sex parent, typically the mother, while harboring feelings of rivalry and hostility toward the same-sex parent, often the father.

This complex is marked by a desire to possess the parent of the opposite sex and the fear of retaliation by the parent of the same sex. It plays a pivotal role in shaping a child’s psychosexual development, personality formation, and understanding of gender and societal norms.

Oedipus Complex: Theorists, Works and Arguments
Key Theorists:
  • Sigmund Freud: The concept of the Oedipus Complex was developed by Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. It is a fundamental element of his psychosexual theory and is elaborated in various works, including The Interpretation of Dreams and “Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality.”
Key Works:
  • The Interpretation of Dreams (1899): Freud discusses the Oedipus Complex in the context of dream analysis, exploring its significance in the interpretation of dreams.
  • Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905): Freud delves into the Oedipus Complex as a central aspect of his theory of human sexuality, emphasizing its role in the development of personality and gender identity.
Arguments and Key Concepts:
  • Triangular Desire: Freud argued that during the phallic stage of psychosexual development, children experience triangular desire, with the child desiring the opposite-sex parent (typically the mother) while viewing the same-sex parent (typically the father) as a rival.
  • Resolution and Identification: The Oedipal conflict is resolved through the process of identification, where the child internalizes the values and norms of the same-sex parent, forming the basis of their superego and contributing to their gender identity.
  • Psychological Development: Freud contended that the Oedipus Complex plays a pivotal role in the formation of personality and the development of sexual and social identity.
  • Critiques and Modifications: While the Oedipus Complex remains influential, subsequent psychoanalysts and scholars have critiqued and modified Freud’s theories, offering nuanced perspectives and alternative interpretations of the complex.

The Oedipus Complex, as outlined by Freud, remains a cornerstone of psychoanalytic theory, offering insights into the intricate interplay of desire, identity, and family dynamics in human development and literature.

Oedipus Complex and Literary Theories
TheoryRelevance to the Oedipus Complex
Psychoanalytic Literary Theory– Core Concept: This is at the core of psychoanalytic literary theory. It provides a framework for analyzing characters’ motivations, desires, and conflicts in literature. Analysts explore how characters’ relationships with parental figures influence their behavior and decisions, adding depth to character analysis and plot interpretation.
Feminist Literary Theory– Critique of Gendered Implications: Feminist literary theorists have examined the Oedipus Complex to critique its gendered implications. They explore how Freud’s theory reflects and reinforces patriarchal norms and power structures. It is analyzed as a tool of social control and the reinforcement of traditional gender roles.
Gender and Queer Theory– Intersection with Identity: Gender and queer theorists engage with the Oedipus Complex to explore how it intersects with non-binary and LGBTQ+ identities in literature. They investigate how characters’ desires and identifications with parental figures relate to normative notions of gender and sexuality, and how queer readings can challenge or subvert Oedipal narratives.
Marxist Literary Theory– Analysis of Power Dynamics: Marxist literary theorists may analyze it in the context of class and power dynamics in literature. While not central to Marxism, the Oedipus Complex can symbolize forms of social power and dominance, contributing to discussions of societal hierarchies and exploitation.
Reader-Response Theory– Reader’s Interpretation: Reader-response theorists consider how readers engage with and interpret it as it is presented in literary texts. The theory explores how readers’ personal experiences and cultural backgrounds shape their understanding of characters’ Oedipal conflicts and desires.
Archetypal Criticism– Universal Themes: Archetypal critics recognize the Oedipus Complex as an archetypal pattern that reflects universal themes of family, identity, and desire. It is examined as part of the broader exploration of recurring literary motifs and symbols.
Oedipus Complex in Literary Criticism
  1. Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” is a classic example where the Oedipus Complex has been widely analyzed. Critics have pointed to Hamlet’s complex relationship with his mother, Queen Gertrude, as indicative of Oedipal desires. Hamlet’s ambivalence and deep-seated conflicts surrounding his mother’s remarriage to his uncle are seen as reflective of the Oedipus Complex, adding layers of psychological depth to the character.
  2. by D.H. Lawrence: D.H. Lawrence’s novel “Sons and Lovers” is often discussed in the context of the Oedipus Complex. The protagonist, Paul Morel, is thought to exhibit Oedipal tendencies in his close and complicated relationship with his mother. Critics have explored how Paul’s struggles with intimacy and his romantic relationships are influenced by his unresolved Oedipal conflicts.: Franz Kafka’s “The Metamorphosis” is interpreted through the lens of the Oedipus Complex, particularly regarding the character of Gregor Samsa. Critics have examined how Gregor’s transformation into a giant insect and his subsequent alienation from his family can be seen as an expression of his unconscious desire to escape his Oedipal conflicts.
  3. Eugene O’Neill’s play “Long Day’s Journey into Night” explores complex family dynamics and psychological conflicts. Critics have noted the presence of Oedipal themes in the relationships between the characters, particularly the strained connection between the son, Edmund, and his mother, Mary. The play delves into the characters’ repressed desires and emotional struggles.
Suggested Readings
  1. Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretation of Dreams. Translated by James Strachey, Basic Books, 2010.
  2. Jones, Ernest. The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud. Vol. 2, Basic Books, 1961.
  3. Kernberg, Otto F. Love Relations: Normality and Pathology. Yale University Press, 1995.
  4. Lawrence, D.H. Sons and Lovers. Penguin Classics, 2006.
  5. Miller, Alice. The Drama of the Gifted Child: The Search for the True Self. Basic Books, 1997.
  6. O’Neill, Eugene. Long Day’s Journey into Night. Yale University Press, 2014.
  7. Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Edited by Harold Jenkins, Arden Shakespeare, 2002.
  8. Sophocles. Oedipus Rex. Translated by David Grene, University of Chicago Press, 2018.
  9. Volkan, Vamik D. The Infantile Psychotic Self and Its Fates: Understanding and Treating Schizophrenics and Other Difficult Patients. Jason Aronson, 1995.
  10. Zaretsky, Eli. Secrets of the Soul: A Social and Cultural History of Psychoanalysis. Vintage, 2005.

Phallic in Literature & Literary Theory

Etymology of Phallic

The term “phallic” derives its etymology from the ancient Greek word “phallos.” It referred to a representation of the male genitalia, specifically, the erect penis. In ancient Greece, phallic symbols and images were commonly used in religious and cultural contexts to symbolize fertility, masculinity, and the generative power of nature.

With time, phallic evolved into a range of meanings beyond its literal representation of male anatomy. In contemporary academic discourse, “phallic” often occurs metaphorically to connote ideas related to masculinity, power, dominance, and sexual symbolism.

It is frequently utilized in fields such as psychology, literature, and gender studies to explore themes of sexuality, gender roles, and the dynamics of power within various cultural and societal contexts.

Meanings of Phallic
AspectKey Meanings and Interpretations
Sexual Symbolism– Represents Male Genitalia: In literature, it describes symbols representing the male genitalia, particularly the erect penis. They signify sexual desire, potency, and virility.
Masculinity and Power– Symbolizes Male Dominance: Phallic symbols explore themes of masculinity and power dynamics, symbolizing male dominance, authority, and control within a narrative or text.
Freudian Analysis– Linked to Oedipus Complex: In Freudian analysis, this symbol is central. It’s associated with the Oedipus complex, representing the male child’s desire for the mother and rivalry with the father.
Gender and Identity– Deconstructs Gender Roles: Its symbolism deconstructs traditional gender roles and examines how societal norms shape characters’ behavior, prompting discussions about gender identity.
Subversion and Critique– Challenges Masculinity Norms: Authors use its symbols to subvert or critique traditional masculinity norms, challenging established power structures and cultural norms.
Psychoanalysis and Literature– Analyzes Psychological Significance: In psychoanalytic literary theory, its symbols are analyzed for their psychological and symbolic significance, delving into characters’ unconscious desires and fears.
Gender Studies– Feminist Perspective: In gender studies and feminist literary theory, phallic symbols are scrutinized for their role in reinforcing or challenging patriarchy and traditional gender hierarchies, exploring how they can be subverted or reclaimed by female authors.
Definition of Phallic as a Theoretical Term

Phallic, as a theoretical term, refers to symbols, imagery, or motifs within literature and cultural discourse that symbolically represent the male genitalia, particularly the erect penis. These symbols are often laden with connotations related to sexuality, masculinity, and power dynamics.

In literary and cultural analysis, it occurs to explore themes of sexual desire, dominance, and the influence of gender norms on narratives and societal structures.

Phallic: Theorists, Works and Arguments
Key Theorists:
  • Sigmund Freud: Freud’s psychoanalytic theory introduced the concept of the phallic stage in psychosexual development, which has influenced discussions of phallic symbolism in literature.
  • Jacques Lacan: Lacan, a French psychoanalyst, expanded on Freud’s ideas and introduced the concept of the phallus as a symbolic signifier in language and desire.
Key Works:
  • The Interpretation of Dreams (1899) by Sigmund Freud: Freud’s seminal work laid the groundwork for understanding the role of the phallic stage in human development and its implications for literature.
  • The Language of the Self: The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis (1968) by Jacques Lacan: In this work, Lacan delves into the concept of the phallus as a symbol of desire and linguistic signification.
Arguments and Key Concepts:
  • Phallic Stage: Freud’s theory posits that during the stage of psychosexual development, children develop a strong attachment to their genitalia and begin to understand gender differences.
  • Oedipus Complex: Freud argues that during the phallic stage, children experience the Oedipus complex, where a son desires his mother and views his father as a rival.
  • Symbolic Significance: Both Freud and Lacan emphasize the symbolic significance of the phallus, representing not just male genitalia but also desire, power, and lack within the realm of language and culture.
  • Gender and Identity: The theorists’ works have been applied to analyze how phallic symbolism in literature reflects and shapes gender roles, identity, and power dynamics.
  • Language and Desire: Lacan’s concept of the phallus as a linguistic signifier has led to discussions of how language constructs and mediates desire in literature and culture.

Phallic symbolism, as explored by Freud and Lacan, plays a pivotal role in psychoanalytic and linguistic analyses of literature, offering insights into the complexities of human desire, gender, and language.

Phallic and Literary Theories
TheoryRelevance to Phallic Symbolism
Psychoanalytic Literary Theory– Explanation: Psychoanalytic literary theory explores the psychological dimensions of literature, drawing from Freud’s concept of the Oedipus complex and the phallic stage of development. Phallic symbolism is highly relevant as it helps analyze characters’ desires, relationships with parents, and gender roles in literature. It delves into the subconscious elements of literature and their representation through symbols.
Feminist Literary Theory– Explanation: Feminist literary theory examines gender and power dynamics in literature. Phallic symbolism is relevant as it often embodies patriarchal ideologies and masculine dominance. It allows feminists to scrutinize how such symbols reinforce traditional gender hierarchies and oppressive structures, as well as how female authors may subvert or reclaim these symbols to challenge norms and highlight issues of agency and identity.
Gender and Queer Theory– Explanation: Gender and queer theories explore gender identity, sexuality, and sexual identity in literature. Phallic symbols can be examined in queer readings to understand their interaction with non-binary or LGBTQ+ identities in literature. This analysis investigates how phallic symbols intersect with normative notions of sexuality and gender and their relevance to queer desires and identities.
Marxist Literary Theory– Explanation: While phallic symbolism is not central to Marxism, it may be relevant in discussions of power dynamics, particularly regarding class and gender. Phallic symbols can symbolize not only sexual potency but also forms of social power and dominance. Marxist analysis can examine how the use of phallic symbolism in literature reflects or critiques class-based hierarchies and exploitation.
Phallic in Literary Criticism
  1. In John Cheever’s short story “The Swimmer,” the swimming pool becomes a recurring phallic symbol. The protagonist, Neddy Merrill, embarks on a journey through his suburban neighborhood by swimming from pool to pool, symbolizing his desire for escape and renewal. As he progresses, the pools represent his pursuit of youth, potency, and a sense of masculinity. However, as the story unfolds, the pools also become symbols of his descent into existential crisis and loss of virility, reflecting the complexities of midlife masculinity.
  2. T.S. Eliot’s poem “The Waste Land” contains several references to phallic symbolism, often associated with themes of impotence and spiritual decay. For instance, the poem includes the image of the “fishing with a small green worm” in a river, which can be interpreted as a phallic symbol and a commentary on modern society’s loss of vitality. While this poem is not recent, its enduring influence on modern literature makes it worth mentioning.
  3. by Han Kang (2007, English translation 2015): In Han Kang’s novel The Vegetarian, the character Yeong-hye’s decision to become a vegetarian becomes a powerful symbol of resistance against societal norms and expectations. The act of refusing to consume meat can be seen as a form of rejecting traditional gender roles and power structures. As the story unfolds, it explores the consequences of this decision and the impact it has on her identity and relationships, touching on themes of desire and control.
Suggested Readings
  1. Freud, Sigmund. The Interpretation of Dreams. Translated by James Strachey, Basic Books, 2010.
  2. Lacan, Jacques. The Language of the Self: The Function of Language in Psychoanalysis. Translated by Anthony Wilden, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.
  3. Han Kang. The Vegetarian. Translated by Deborah Smith, Hogarth, 2015.
  4. Melville, Herman. Moby-Dick; or, The Whale. Penguin Classics, 2003.
  5. Perkins Gilman, Charlotte. “The Yellow Wallpaper.” In The Yellow Wallpaper and Other Stories, edited by Robert Shulman, Dover Publications, 1997, pp. 1-19.
  6. Williams, Raymond. Marxism and Literature. Oxford University Press, 1977.
  7. Cheever, John. “The Swimmer.” In The Stories of John Cheever, Vintage, 2003, pp. 421-436.
  8. Eliot, T.S. The Waste Land. W. W. Norton & Company, 2012.

“The Albatross” and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”

Like the albatross in “The Albatross” and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”, symbols in literature go beyond their intended meanings.

Introduction to Albatross in “The Albatross” and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”

Like the albatross in “The Albatross” and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”, symbols in literature go beyond their intended meanings. It is up to the reader to extract meanings of his own choice but with reference to the poem or comparative study of the other pieces published in the same genre or other genres. The symbol could be a bird, an object, or even an animal. Albatross – a bird has found its usage as a symbol in several poetic pieces. It is interpreted in several ways in English poetry but it is quite strange that the same symbol has been used by two different poets in the same sense and representing the same meanings. Whereas Baudelaire’s albatross is the poet himself, an odd man out, the albatross of Coleridge represents something that is good, an innocent bird and even faultless. Yet both poets have concluded the same. The albatross in “The Albatross” and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” represents goodness whereas, in the first poem, its defiance invites divine wrath, in other its derision demonstrates human stupidity.

Albatross in Coleridge

Albatross of Coleridge is someone like Christ. It is a faultless, and “innocent bird” (Saeed) because Biblical studies have also supported two facts about birds; the first one is that the Spirit of God takes the form of a bird, and the second is that birds are spiritual beings. When Coleridge says that “As if it had been a Christian soul, /We hailed it in God’s name. (Coleridge ll. 63-66)”. This is the point where the sailors want to shoot the bird. And they did but they are also sure that it is a “Christian soul” (66) and have nothing to do with some evil spirit or bad omen. This is exactly similar to what happens to Christ. The message of the murder of the albatross in this poem is to convey that human beings have always shunned or killed the messengers of God (Saeed) for it happened with Christ and it is happening with the poet in “The Albatross” as well where Baudelaire compares himself with albatross, a bird which is “kings of the sky” (Baudelaire 5) with “great wings” (6), seems quite ugly and comic now, and the sailors after catching him are playing tricks and making fun of it. Baudelaire has actually the same philosophy that the Urdu poet Iqbal has about the poets. He states in Urdu “a poet is a second messenger of God” (Iqbal) which means that though he is not a prophet, he is JHis representative to spread goodness, but people often kill prophets and turn a blind eye to the poets and here Baudelaire equals himself with the bird saying “The poet resembles this prince of cloud and sky” (Baudelaire 13). It leads to what is called the victimization of the bird by the sailors and the poet by the society. It means the albatross in “The Albatross” and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” could be different.

Albatross in “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”

Society has always treated birds and poets both with derision and prophets with cruelty. In “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” they kill the bird. It means that they have killed the innocent, or the Christian soul (Saeed), and this killing of the bird was rather a stupidity of the worst kind as the Wedding-Guest had to say, “God save thee, ancient Marinere! / “From the fiends that plague thee thus.” (Coleridge I. 36-38). Michael Raiger compares this idea with several theological studies from Augustine’s doctrines to Milton’s Paradise Lost, saying this is an arbitrary action and it is a psychological issue that arbitrary action takes place when a person is either stupid or has lost sanity. The mariner involved in the killing of the bird himself says “…a saint took pity on / My soul in agony,” (Coleridge IV 11-12).  This mental condition borders insanity and intense despair. Hence this is the point where a person knowingly or unknowingly commits mistakes and demonstrates his stupidity. Similarly, the mob has also the same psyche and Baudelaire is fully aware of this mob psyche of either killing the prophets like sailors or torturing the poets with their stupid derision and neglect whereas a poet becomes “the butt of hoots and jeers” (Baudelaire 15). It is due to the reason that he preaches goodness and does the job of prophets. However, the poets cannot walk with the crowds and stand apart. They cannot mix with them like Albatross which looks beautiful from far off but is quite clumsy and awkward when caught. Similarly, the poet seems to be prevented “from walking” (16) by his “giant wings) (16) which here mean his thoughts. Peter Curman, a Swedish poet has also said the same thing about the poet in his poem “The Monastery Madman” saying that “They say he’s mad. / Anyone who has inside his head / A macro- or microcosm / Must be mad” (Curman 9-13) to support the claim of Coleridge and Baudelaire in the albatross in “The Albatross” and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” for which they have used the symbol.

Conclusion

Concluding the argument, it is fair to state that the major objective of both poets was to prove the innocence of the albatross like the prophets and poets through the albatross in “The Albatross” and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”. And they have used this symbol to bring home their readers in which they have proved highly successful. Both have used this symbol as a representation of goodness and innocence that often becomes a victim of mass cruelty and human stupidity. The divine wrath that human beings invite is often the result of this defiance of innocent and goodness and victimization of sane souls such as prophets and messengers. Hence, the albatross in in “The Albatross” and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” is a spiritual bird that brings a message of goodness.

Works Cited
  1. Baudelaire, Charles. The Albatross. 2012. RPO. <http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poems/albatross>. Accessed 07 Dec. 2013.
  2. Coleridge, Sameul Taylor. “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.” n.d. Poetry Foundation. <http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173253>. Accessed 07 Dec. 2013.
  3. Curman, Peter. “The Monastery Madman.” n.d. TSWTC. <http://www.tswtc.org/documents/tsvetanka.htm>. Accessed 07 Dec. 2013.
  4. Iqbal, Muhammad. Gabriel’s Wings. Lahore, Pakistan: Sang-e-Meel Publications, 1984.
  5. Rogers, Michael. “I Shot the Albatross.” The Journal of the Friends of Coleridge 28 (2006): 73-82.
  6. Saeed, Dr. Ismael Mohammadfahim. “The Bird Symbol in English Romantic and Post-Romantic Poetry.” n.d. IRCO. <http://www.ircoedu.uobaghdad.edu.iq/uploads/42/The%20Bird%20Symbol-Amended-%20Final.pdf.>. Accessed 07 Dec. 2013.
Relevant Questions in Albatross in “The Albatross” and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”: Poet, Albatross, and Jesus
  1. How do the portrayals of the albatross in “The Albatross” and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Charles Baudelaire respectively, serve to symbolize the poet’s message or the overarching themes in their respective works?
  2. In “The Albatross” by Charles Baudelaire and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, how does the albatross hold significance within the context of the Christian allegory present in both poems, and how does it relate to the character of Jesus?
  3. Analyzing the killing of the albatross in both “The Albatross” by Charles Baudelaire and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, how does this pivotal event shape the moral and spiritual journey of the characters in each poem, and what commentary do the poets offer on human actions and their consequences through this shared symbol?

Common People in The Prince by Machiavelli

Machiavelli is considered the pioneer in suggesting pragmatic pieces of advice to dictators that is why it seems interesting to see common people in The Prince.

Introduction to Common People in Prince

Generally, Machiavelli is considered the pioneer in suggesting pragmatic pieces of advice to dictators that is why it seems interesting to see common people in The Prince. He has also shed light on the character of the common people who are the ultimate subjects, and play an important role in the formation of governments and consolidation of the powers of the princes and dictators. His views are drastically opposed to the humanists of the Renaissance era who gave more importance to the general public, but his views are contained within the powers and authorities a prince wields, exploiting the common people. His comprehension of the character of the common people is devoid of any religious values or morality prevailing at that time. It is because he, in fact, is a political theorist and not a literary writer like Chaucer who has pointed out idiosyncrasies and flaws in the general dealings of his characters in his famous “The Canterbury Tales”. Most of his views are generalities based on his own observation of the people as a crowd to be governed and brought under the authority of law. According to him, human beings or common people are both good and unruly based on their circumstances whether it is peace or chaos. He has used the specific term “plebe” for the common people and the role of the prince is to exploit his plebe to serve his own interests, not theirs. In fact, the welfare and attitude or behavior of the people are to be manipulated for good governance to keep the prince in power. In order to understand the plebs better, Machiavelli has divided the plebs into two distinct groups; the nobles and the common people in The Prince. However, he has counted the nobles within the common people as slightly different and observed the role and character of the commoners as a political entity with some drawbacks and qualities based on circumstantial necessities.  

Sections of Common People in The Prince

Machiavelli’s’ common people comprises of a division of the society into two distinct sections; the nobles and the plebs or general populace. He sheds light on the interaction which is between the nobles and their own local subjects that is that “each [noble] acknowledge and loved by his own subjects” (Chapter 4) by which he means that the nobles should be controlled first by the prince to control the common people. He also points out that there is always a difference within this social structure in which the character of the common people is very important. It is because “common people don’t want to be ruled or ordered around by nobles” (Chapter-9) which means that if there is dissatisfaction among the common people against the nobles, this means there is a way for the prince to exploit this character of the common people to his own end.  The advice for the prince is from the point of view of the common people because it is hard to satisfy the nobles but it is easy for the prince because he “can satisfy the people without harming anyone” (Chapter-9) the reason which he says is that because “what the nobles want is to oppress the people” (Chapter-9). In this connection, he goes in the favor of the people due to their having few desires. He also warns the prince against these nobles, as they are more prone to harming and attacking him. However, practically, he can secure his position among them easily, but when it comes to the common people, as they are multitudes, they are “of a threat than the nobles” (Chapter-9). It is also that in this conflict between the nobles and the common people in the Prince, the common people are always winders because of their numbers and the real stability of the state lies within them not in the nobles. Therefore, the sane advice for both is that if the state is to be stable, the character of both of these sections should be understood. It means wise princes “have taken every care not to drive the nobles to desperation and to keep the common people satisfied and contented” (Chapter-9) which means understanding each one of these sections is vital.  Although as a section of the same people, nobles are easy to gather around, Machiavelli demonstrates his disgust for this section. He is of the view that they are always greedy for positions, eager to oppress and seek their own interests instead of the prince. His comments on this section, actually, make his views about the character of the common people clear that if you “arm your people, you man those arms yours” (Chapter-11) which means that it is the empowerment of the common people in The Prince instead of the upper strata that he wishes to propound.

Political Common People in The Prince

However, as a political entity, he has also presented his acute understanding of the inherent good and bad qualities of the common people. These common qualities are generally considered within the framework of the principality, as to how these contribute to its stability and how these make a person unstable and weak.  As for his opinion about the character of the common people, he refers to men saying “they are ungrateful, fickle, deceptive, cowardly and greedy” (Chapter-17) adding that they only seek their own interests “as long as you are doing them good, they are entirely yours; they will offer you their blood, their property, their lives, and their children” (Chapter-17). However, this entirely depends on the prince how to make the people show this good side of their character. He means that as they are inherently good, they also want something good in return for these offerings. However, if there is none, they turn against the prince and the ruler. Again it depends on their position and the role of the people. If the common people have been taken as mercenaries, he says, “they are disunited, ambitious, undisciplined and disloyal” (Chapter-12) when they see that there is danger. However, when they see that there is some gain, the same lot is courageous and friendly. It is up to the prince or the ruler to keep them united by showing them what they are impressed by the most, as he states that the common people are “always impressed by appearances and outcomes, and the world contained only common people” (Chapter-18). The best course in this connection is to bring a parliament to win their favor. Hence, the role and character of the common people as a political entity are very important, and a good and sagacious prince knows how to manipulate this major power entity in order to consolidate his own power by offering appearances by constituting a parliament and making them see their own good.

Understanding of Common People in The Prince

However, what his understanding of the common people shows is that in his views they are simpletons and easy to be deceived, as he advises his prince to be a deceptive person as well. His view is that it is the nature of the common people to be “impressed by appearances and outcomes” (Chapter-18). He means that they are easy to be misled by the false appearances of the good things to come. This means that they are unable to discern what lies ahead for them. Therefore, they cannot be entrusted to be advisors, nobles, or ministers. However, some of them are intelligent and the prince can choose them with care and precaution. This does not mean that the character of the common people has changed. Their role as the harbinger of stable and solid governance is a sure way to become a good and powerful prince. A popular prince, according to Machiavelli, just knows the character of the common people and should know how to lead them, how to show them bravery, how to show courage and boldness, and how to encourage them. It is because ultimately, it is they who are to solidify his power, and their character judgment in this connection is manipulated by him. He states that “a prince must have the friendly people” (Chapter-9), and it is the role of the prince to mold their character into a friendly one through his actions toward them as shown through common people in The Prince.

Simplicity of Common People in The Prince

Despite being simpletons and easily led astray, Machiavelli has also listed several qualities of the people that can prove an asset for the stability of the state. This shows his in-depth understanding of the character of the common people in The Prince during those eras. He is of the view that the common people are more prudent in having sound judgment. They want peace and the status quo in order to flourish. When there is discontent, their role is prominent but during peace times, they want to enjoy life. Therefore, there are two things dear to them; their property and their women.  People often forget some injury or cruelty against them, but they never forget these two wounds. He states that a ruler must “keeps his hands off people’s property, because a man forgets the death of his father sooner than he would forget the loss of property his father left to him” (Chapter-17). If this is done, then the people start becoming discontented and this changes their overall character and role. They become hostile toward the prince and the state. He also states that freedom is very important to the common people. If they are habitual of living in servitude, then it does not matter. However, once they have tasted the freedom, they will never “forget their former freedom” (Chapter-5) in which case their character has been hardened, and they will prove a grave danger.

Conclusion

In short, his proposition in suggesting such a diverse role and character of the common people in The Prince is that he wants his prince to solidify the foundations of his state, and none else could replace the role of the common people. Hence he has put the common people in contrast to the nobles who are, though of sound judgment and generally shrewd, highly dangerous for a state. Therefore, his logic about the role of the people by analyzing their character is suitable for the princes and their stable governments. If they are given a good leader, who is the prince, they are irresistible and prove assets during foreign onslaughts or any adverse circumstances. These common people often prove stronger and fearless in the defense of the state than the nobles as they have more at stake. In addition, they love peace and calmness more than general instability as they have more at stake than the nobles do even in these circumstances. Therefore, to keep the government and the state stable, their temperament and behavior count very much, and a sagacious prince needs to understand this temperament in changing circumstances. It is also that if the people are satisfied and there is perfect peace, it serves the interests of the price and consolidates the establishment of laws, statutes, and institutions. More peace and prosperity bring more people into governance, which further strengthens the institutions and leads to the power of the prince. Therefore, the character of the people in consolidating the power of the prince as a political entity is a very important one. They do not demand much as opposed to lords and nobles but very little that is the absence of oppression and promises of a good future.

Works Cited
  1. Machiavelli, Niccolò. The Prince (1513). Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions, 1993.
Relevant Questions about Common People in The Prince by Machiavelli
  1. How does Machiavelli characterize the relationship between a ruler and the Common People in The Prince?
  2. What specific strategies does Machiavelli advocate in The Prince for securing the support or control of the Common People in The Prince, and what are the implications of these strategies?
  3. In The Prince, how does Machiavelli’s guidance on handling Common People in The Prince reflect the broader themes of political realism and pragmatism in his philosophy of leadership?

Characters in The Odyssey Symbolizing Western Values

Characters in The Odyssey by Homer have a strong influence not only on the Western literary canon but also on Western cultural values.

Introduction to Values and Characters in The Odyssey

Characters in The Odyssey by Homer have a strong influence not only on the Western literary canon but also on Western cultural values that the Western nations cherish. From the Anglo-Saxon period to the present modern period, Odyssey, his wife Penelope and their son Telemachus have been used to create epithets, similes, and metaphors that embody the Western values that the intellectuals intend to inculcate among their people. Therefore, most of the heroes of Western literature have been termed after these names. However, despite this, to evaluate or judge the characters of Odyssey on the canons of Western morality is not only unjustifiable but also very difficult on account of the wider gap of time and place. Also, there is a huge gap between that period in which some other values were cherished but according to the modern moral standards, those are not appreciable. It seems a dubious supposition to impose the modern canons on the classic mythical heroes but to prove that most of the Western values derived from those characters is not only easy but also correct. It is because, after all, it is Greek literature and philosophy that has laid the foundation of modern Western civilization.  Most of the Western values have been derived from the Greek and Roman civilization. Therefore, these three characters in The Odyssey embody the Western values that are still cherished in the world such as courage, leadership style, patience, mental ingenuity, faithfulness, and claim to a rightful position.

Odysseus and Other Characters in The Odyssey

As far as Odysseus is concerned, though he has been presented as a military hero in the Iliad, most of his qualities emerge in The Odyssey. Not only he is articulate, but also brave with innate leadership qualities. His intelligence and compassion have come to the forefront. His intelligence comes into play when he faces Calypso, Cyclopes, and other adventures in which he leads his men from the front.  His mental sharpness comes out as a leader when he faces that one-eyed monster. He says, “Cyclops, you asked about my famous name. / I’ll tell you” (Book VI  662), asserting his leadership role that nobody else is there to do. Not only he loves his wife but also leaves everything else to come home for her. This is the compassionate side of his characters that the Western culture has borrowed. He also is not less courageous, which has been shown in several other heroes in  Western literature. Terming him “brave, glory seeking, articulate and resourceful” Beardsley has stated in his book, The Ideal of “The Odyssey” that Odysseus could be called “conscience” which is the most modern concept of the Western values due to which the whole charter of human rights have been created (Beardsley). The modern concept of critical decision-making has also been borrowed from Odysseus and other characters in The Odyssey.

Penelope and Other Characters in The Odyssey

Whereas the case of his wife Penelope is concerned, she is the name of a faithful woman, who can do everything to preserve her chastity. Her strong determination to remain true to her husband wins the hearts of modern readers. At some moments, it appears that she is almost accepting the claims and hands of the suitors, but at the right moment, she again makes them wait for her. This concept of being a faithful wife still holds great importance in the Western world. She is not only herself faithful, but Odysseus also trusts her on account of which he says that “I myself know very well Penelope” (Book V 268). In their book, Culture and Values: A Survey of the Western Humanities, “Cunningham et. al. have termed her as “circumspect and discreet” because she holds back the aggressive suitors for such a long time that it wins her love of no less than a man, Odysseus (Cunningham et al 2014). However, her faithfulness lies in the fact that she does not utters any word to complain to Odysseus about how she suffers in his long absence. This shows the traits of all characters in The Odyssey.

Telemachus and Other Characters in The Odyssey

Telemachus is the son of Odysseus. He is quite young when his father leaves for Troy and does not return for the next twenty years. As he is not able to guard his mother, he plays his role as a son of the king of Ithaca and claims his rightful position when his father returns. He embodies the spirit of a son of a true hero who is to return someday and if not, he is ready to claim his rightful place. He shows leadership qualities from the very start – the reason that even Odysseus trusts his son at the end. He discloses his identity to Telemachus and not Eumaios who is quite loyal to him. When Telemachus considers him one of the gods, he clearly states, “Why you compare me to immortals? / But I am your father?” (Book XVI 235) which shows how much he trust his son who is trust worthy. Then he joins his father to cause the downfall of the vicious suitors who have been sitting in the lawn of their home. There are other characters who also embody great qualities such as Eumaios who is a faithful servant of Odysseus. He stays with his wife until he returns. However, these three characters in The Odyssey are considered embodiment of the values that the Western civilization still upholds.

In short, Odysseus, Penelope, and Telemachus, the main characters in The Odyssey,  have now become household names due to their qualities. Several pieces have been written on and around their characters. Several heroes have been created, imitating them and several adjectives have been created to appreciate or depreciate other characters. But the qualities that they displayed in this long epic are still considered bedrock of the Western values. Therefore, to say that they are symbols of the values that the West cherishes and feels proud to hold is not wrong, for almost all the Western values owe a great deal for their derivation from the Greek civilization. The characters created by the Greeks still are role models for great and immortal values.

Works Cited
  1. Homer. The Odyssey. Trans. Ian Johnston. Second. Arlington: Richer Resources Publications. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.
  2. Beardsley, David A. The Ideal of “The Odyssey.” The Ideal in the West. 2012. Web. 22 Feb. 2015
  3. Cunningham, Lawrence & John Reich, Lois Fichner-Rathus. Culture and Values: A Survey of the Western Humanities. 8. Vol. 1. Cengage Learning, 2014. Print.
Relevant Questions about Characters in The Odyssey Symbolizing Western Values
  1. How does Odysseus embody the value of cunning intelligence and heroism?
  2. What role do the gods and goddesses play in the characters’ lives and their adherence to moral values in The Odyssey?
  3. How do characters like Telemachus and Penelope exemplify the values of loyalty and perseverance in the face of adversity?