Framework Advocating CSOs Analysis

Framework Advocating CSOs Analysis Take a case of actually existing civil society and critically discuss the extent to which your case has managed to achieve any democratic or developmental progress. Championed as the panacea for development ills under the neoliberal New Policy Agenda (McIllwaine;1998), civil society has become the sweetheart of development donors (Barr, Fafchamps Owens, 2005;659), famed for its ability to incubate participatory development[ma1][ma2]. Civil society is conceptualised as an independent third pillar between state and market, comprising of horizontal networks of associational groups with cross cut ties of kinship and patronage (Putnam, 1993). Within this network, citizens organize to pursue shared interests and influence policy in the public domain (UNDP, 2014). Civil society organisations (CSOs) can embody autonomous or NGO supported community based organisations, or can comprise of NGOs as primary agents of civil society themselves (Mohan, 2002[ma3]). Despite doubt surrounding the classification of NGOs as CSOs (Carmody, 2007), this essay will define NGOs as a variant of CSOs, as their primary purpose is influencing public policy (Edwards Hulme, 1997;24), and are independent from direct government control (UNDP, 2014[ma4][ma5]). Thus, for the reasons outlined, this essay will focus on the Voice2People programme of Christian Aid, an NGO based CSO. Ultimately, this essay will examine the extent to which the normative framework advocating CSOs as the missing middle between citizen and state (World Bank, 1996;114), represents the reality of actually existing civil society (Mamdani, 1996;19). It is in this sense that actually existing civil society is defined as the reality of CSOs in practise as largely dissonant from the normative promised agenda for change (Ibid). By analysing Christian Aids Voice2People programme, this essay will posit that the realities of actually existing civil society are divergent from the normative ideals placed upon it, and thus can achieve little democratic or developmental success. This essay will begin by demonstrating the normative and programmatic qualities perceived as inherent within CSOs, in particular their ability to facilitate participatory development, upon which donor funding is predicated (Igoe Kelsall, 2005). It will then outline the Voice2People programme rolled out by Christian Aid, in relation to the normative characteristics it is perceived to retain. Once the theoretical framework is outlined, this paper will then assess the extent to which these normative ideals diverge from reality of actually existing civil society. By outlining the flaws of the theoretical framework underlying the programme, and the problematic constraints it faced, this essay will conclude by arguing that contrary to normative perceptions, actually existing civil society in the case of the Voice2People programme, can achieve very little democratic or developmental progress. The normative characteristics of civil society organisations However, it is first essential to outline the perceived normative characteristics of CSOs in order to analyse their divergence from the empirical reality of actually existing civil society. These characteristics are normative in the sense they are expected rather than empirically validated. It[ma6][ma7] is also essential to underscore the ideological nature of these characteristics, which dovetail the neoliberal new policy agenda (Robinson, 2003;2) which embraces the democratic development paradigm (Banks, Edwards and Hulme; 2015, 710) in supporting inclusive participation to facilitate development (Mertz, 2012;54). Firstly, neoliberal theory posits CSOs as vehicles through which to build better citizens (Archer, 1994). Civil society is thus perceived as an arena for the cultivation of liberal norms, including participation and market rationality (Williams Young, 2012). CSOs become schools of liberal democracy (Banks, Edwards Hulme, 2015;4) educating citizens to take participate in formulating their own development agenda. Secondly, CSOs are also regarded as key actors in encouraging increased state accountability, as an active civil society enables choice, scrutinises errant governments, and leads to pluralised democracy (Mohan, 2002). CSOs thus demand state accountability to local demands (Suileman, 2013;245) an issue outlined by the Voice2People baseline report (Christian Aid, 2013). In addition, CSOs are also perceived by donors as vital facilitators of democratisation. This is because CSOs are seen to exhibit a pluralising function as they disperse the distribution of political power in s ociety through increasing channels of access (Hadenius Uggla, 1996) what Ndegwa (1996;3) terms the civil society political liberalisation thesis. Additionally, as Przewoski (1992) notes, CSOs also play a constitutive role in defining the rules of state/CSO interaction along democratic lines. Finally, the last perceived function of CSOs is facilitating localised empowerment, so communities can pursue their own development activities either through CSOs or as autonomous politically conscious citizens. This view posits the poor not as beneficiaries, but as controllers of the development process with the means to radically alter their own situation (Clark, 1991;201). However, for the sake of this essay, the above functions will be amalgamated into one role of facilitating participatory development the process through which stakeholders can influence and share control over development initiatives, decisions and resources that affect themselves (Worldbank, 1996b;4). This requires the participation of empowered groups in the design and implementation of development projects, and is dependent on a state open to pluralising the political arena to organisations such as CSOs who can demand accountability on behalf of their members. The[ma8] next section of this essay will outline the Voice2People programme rolled out by Christian Aid, which attempts to facilitate participatory development in Nigeria. A case of actually existing civil society Christian Aids Voice2People programme is a DFID funded programme worth  £2million (DFID, 2016), aiming to facilitate citizen-driven development and increased government accountability in Anambra State, Nigeria (Christian Aid, 2016;2). It is through this programme which aims to influence public development policy, that Christian Aid can be regarded as a CSO in its own right. Prior to the programme, the baseline report suggested that 54% of 1, 535 respondents in the area felt they were not able participate in making demands to state representatives, and that there was no accountability mechanism to ensure state compliance with local needs (Christian Aid, 2013;6-8). Consequently, the Voice2People community based programme utilised two strategies (outlined by Brown and Tandon;1994) in an attempt to rectify this democratic deficit (Warleigh, 2001;1). Firstly, Voice2People employed state reform strategies to secure agreements which guaranteed quarterly community engagement meetings, with the aim to precipitate democratic norms such as state accountability. Secondly, societal programmes such as the use of participatory rural appraisals (PRAs) intended to create community charters of needs, aiming to immerse all levels of community participation in development consultations (Christian Aid, 2016a;8). However, this next section will analyse the theoretical and practical barriers which constrain the Voice2People programme; an example of actually existing civil society (Mamdani, 1996:19); in achieving participatory development. Can Voice2People achieve participatory development? In the donor community, the perceived functions of CSOs are taken as normative and unproblematic. This is concerning as this next section will show, there are various theoretical and practical barriers which constrains actually existing civil society (in this case, the Voice2People programme) to achieving participatory development[ma9]. Theoretical barriers One[ma10] of the first theoretical constraints which limit the Voice2People programme and other CSO work in achieving participatory development, is the problematic dichotomy in which state and CSOs are theorised (Lewis, 2000). CSOs are perceived as autonomous agent able to impose community-formulated demands onto a democratic state. However, it is unwise to conceive civil society as unconstrained by the power of the state, as Hadenius and Uggla (1996) note, CSO inclusion is dependent on regime type, with autocratic regimes opposing CSO engagement due to desire to monopolise the political space (Clark, 1991[ma11]). Therefore, as Stewart (1997) suggests, the presence of CSOs does not instantly facilitate democratic engagement with states. In some cases, inclusion of CSOs into policy consultation is little more than PR to meet the criteria of debt relief. In the case of Voice2Protect, government legislation passed in July 2016 which requires a state-led regulatory body to oversee the wo rk of CSOs (Civicus, 2016), demonstrates the power of the Nigerian state in constraining the work of Voice2People. It is therefore too simplistic to theorise the state and CSOs as independent actors with equal agency in influencing public policy[ma12]. Moreover, it would also be unwise to suggest that even democratic states can adequately address the demands of CSOs, as due to the streamlining and weakening of state under structural adjustment, gridlock can occur, whereby the sheer volume of CSO interests and demands can lead to political impasse (Blair, 1997 in Lewis, 2002). This suggests that Voice2People is unable to achieve participatory development success either due to the constraining power of the state, or through lack of state capacity, notions largely ignored by the theoretical framework. This has led to the critique by some post-colonial scholars, who suggest that civil society as a concept has very little explanatory value for the complexities of African associational life (maia) which can include an autocratic state characterised by big men rule (cite). Therefore, although Voice2People established a working relationship with the House that was formalised with an agreement to hold quarterly meetings with members (Christian Aid, 2016;4), there are no constitutional mechanisms to guarantee the continuation of this interaction, and no clear capacity of the state to meet the demands forwarded by Voice2People. This is further evidenced by the Voice2People progress report which cites that citizens found it difficult to engage government officials si nce the governments lacked the financial power to undertaken any projects (Christian Aid, 2014;6). As well as the problematic dichotomy between state and CSOs, the theoretical underpinnings behind CSO led service provision also limits the extent to which Voice2People can achieve participatory development. Due to their closeness to intended beneficiaries, CSOs are regarded as ideal for replacing waning state services that have been decimated by structural adjustment (Carmody;2007). Empowerment therefore is economic in the liberal sense, as through the participation of contributing funds towards a community service project, one gets to become the controller of their own development. Voice2People utilises this approach to pacify the 46% of respondents who were not happy at allwith the level of state service provision (Christian Aid, 2013;6). Although seemingly locally appropriate, this approach is highly problematic as it reduces the concept of public welfare to mere private provision to the extent that citizens forego their sense of state entitlement (Kamat, 2003;156). CSO service p rovision, no matter how well intentioned, therefore reduces the state to a franchise state (Wood, 1997;1) ultimately unaccountable for the services provided to its citizens through other actors. Community based service provision as utilised by Voice2People therefore achieves very little democratic output, as any state accountability based on service provision is nullified, and replaced by self-dependency. Additionally, this project does little to increase development, as the limited financial accessibility of community funded services, means that the chronic poor seldom partake in this form of neoliberal participation and are thus excluded from accessing vital services. conclude [ma13][ma14] Practical constraints When aiming to facilitate participatory development, one of the practical constraints faced by Voice2Protect is the extent to which it can achieve full participation. In an attempt to facilitate inclusive participationVoice2People liaisons with established community structures (Christian Aid), to create charters of demands which prioritise community development needs (ibid). However, by working through established community structures such as chieftaincies, existing power relations are entrenched and reproduced (white). This new localism which essentialises established structures as microcosms of a homogenous community (mohan) is problematic, as it excludes traditionally ostracised groups from access to civil society participation. Additionally, community participation can also be co-opted by middle class hegemonic groups in a bid to access influences and resources (Mercer and green), often leading to disillusionment amongst the primordial public of traditionalist groups who interven tions aimed to target (Suiliman[ma15]). These issues occurred in the Voice2Project programme, whereby community mobilisation was misconstrued to have political bearings by stakeholders wanting to gain access (cite) and thus exclusive meetings were still utilised to buy-in community leadership for the middle classes(Cite). Conclude On a similar note, for Voice2Protect to achieve full democratic participation, there needs to be greater emphasis on the gendered implications of PRAs and other participatory tools, as some V2P communities are yet to adopt balanced representation in decision making platforms (cite). The time necessary to participate in decision making is problematic, as it reduces the time women dedicate to caregiving roles, therefore impeding female participation (Howell and Milligan[ma16]). This then leads to talking to men about women which is hardly democratic nor will ever understand the gendered development issues facing women as a group (Ardner). Concludeand addmore Additionally, one of the clearest practical factors constraining Voice2Protect in facilitating participatory development, is that contrary to building better citizens (archer), CSOs can often pluralise the political arena for the worst, incorporating the voice of extremist or violent community organisations (Lewis and Kanjii). A pluralised political arena thus legitimises vice as well as virtue (Robinson White, 1998;229), as well as ethnic chauvinism (diamond) as an exercise in liberal democracy. Although this does increase pluralised democratic output (for the better or for worse), such instances could indeed hinder inclusive community development, as can often become a platform for legitimising prejudices or community based structural violence[ma17][ma18][ma19]. more Finally, an additional practical limitation faced by Voice2People, is the problematic mode through which democratic participation is facilitated within its programmes. Ultimately, the Voice2People programme is externally facilitated by an NGO based CSO, unlike programmes led by traditionalist CSOs which arise out of indigenous community structures. This stems from a contradictive paradox of self-help, whereby external NGO based CSOs are deployed to facilitate empowerment in traditionalist settings (Page, 2014). The concern here is, that due to the nature of Voice2People as an external NGO directed programme, true participatory development is constrained as it foregoes the political conscientization necessary for true and sustainable empowerment. Evidently, by using NGO based CSOs as proxies for indigenous organisations[ma20], only artificial low intensity democracy can be achieved (Carmody). This artificial empowerment runs the risk of disintegrating once the NGO based CSO has withdr awn, and is therefore unsustainable and unable to exert continuous pressure for longstanding change. Since the timescale of the Voice2People programme had an end date of March 2016 (Christian Aid, 2016), one can suggest that due to the lack of endogenous indigenous programmes to guarantee democratic output, participatory development progress began to disintegrate after the withdrawal of Christian Aid. This suggests that the dichotomy theorised by Mamdani (1996;19), which bifurcates the normative perceptions of civil society and its actually existing form, is too simplistic to encapsulate the different issues faced by varying CSOs. Through homogenising the realities of all actually existing civil society, the dichotomy ignores the vastly different realities faced by NGO based CSOs in relation to indigenous organisations[ma21]. Conclusion Normative ideals as unattainable clear divergence to the reality fo actually existing civil society [ma1]democratic development paradigm (Banks, Edwards and Hulme; 2015, 710 [ma2]Since democracy is regarded as the requisite political system conducive to growth (Chan, 2002), [ma3]Make all this link a bit more [ma4]Something about beneficiary membership or something about closeness to them [ma5]This will become important later on [ma6]Link these two sections together better [ma7] [ma8]Make sure you notePD as requiring liberally moulded empowered citizen participation and a democratic and accountable state. [ma9]Describe theoretical as motivations beind and practical barriers and issues facing actual formation/methodology [ma10]Maybe link western concept here: universalism of normative ideal does not take into account the authoritarian big man state this suggests it is applicable to western experience only. Miaia Why are we pushing the concept it if has failed in the US (Carmoroff and Carmoroff) [ma11]Mandani state power is in the ability to incorporate [ma12]Conclude: how does this link to participatory development? How does this constrain V2P? [ma13] Moreover, it can also be argued that the envisioned concept of civil society is applicable only to the western experience and thus in reality, can achieve very little democratic or developmental progress elsewhere (Lewis, 2003). In this sense, donor support for CSOs is misguided, as the theoretical framework used to mould civil society in Eastern Europe after the fall of communism, has very little explanatory value for the complexities of African associational life such as the constraining power of tribe and caste (Maina). It also ignores the need of a democratic tradition to perpetuate democratic norms within civil society, as an earlier point states, the presence of CSOs such as Voice2People, does not necessarily equate to democracy. Additionally, the limited western definition of CSOs may lead to duplication of efforts to build civil society where an indigenous form already exists (Uggla). This dissonance of the legitimacy to alternatives to western defined CSOs limits true democr acy due to the monopolisation of the political sphere by one homogenous form of CSO (hearn, 2001). When the wrong kinds of CSO are excluded, how can participatory development occur? (Banks Edwards and Hulme). Actually existing civil society cannot therefore lead to full participatory development, as the attributes of civil society itself, are western and ungeneralizable to the Nigerian case. Link to V2P. conclude [ma14] [ma15]say this too much reword this so it isnt repetitive [ma16]needs to link more [ma17]need an example of V2P and how this is not participatory can prejudices lead to the deliberate exclusion of others in participation the need for monitors has reflected this [ma18]it is in this sense that White cites the possibility of CS impeding democracy by gives rise to a multiplicity of distinct structures of dominance and subordinacy [ma19]find example of this in CA policy doccs [ma20]I can only stress that throughà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ [ma21]add example of this from CA policy docc

Illustrate to audiences Essay

This is the scene in which the confrontation between Maggie and Hobson in takes place in the living room. Prior to this scene Maggie has informed Hobson that she is â€Å"Going to marry Willie†. Hobson does not want Maggie to get married but he doesn’t mind Vickey and Alice getting married because they are of less use around the shop and home. Hobson does not want Maggie to get a husband because he is selfish. Maggie is the daughter that is the most businesslike and helps him with the shop regularly. If Maggie were to marry, Hobson would have to do some proper work in the shop. This scene starts with Maggie speaking to Hobson saying â€Å"You and l’ull be straight with one another, father. I’m not a fool and you’re not a fool, and things may as well be put in their places as left untidy†. Here Maggie is very direct in speaking and this is signposting to the audience that there is going to be a confrontation.  Hobson replies with indignation by saying â€Å"You can’t have Willie Mossop. Why, lass, his father was a workhouse brat†. This is an example of the class differences again as Hobson is a shopkeeper and Willie is one of the working class. Willie had come from a poor background and the penniless poor like his father were taken to these workhouses and put to ‘use’. To this Maggie replies â€Å"It’s news to me we’re snobs in Salford. This line would have been humorous to audiences of the past and present because Salford has always been a working town. Hobson is here concerned about his image within the community and about what his friends will think of him in the Moonrakers. Hobson illustrates these thoughts when he says â€Å"I’d be the laughing-stock of the place if I allowed it. I won’t have it, Maggie†. Hobson then tries to justify his stance by adding â€Å"It’s hardly decent at your time of life†. One aspect in which audiences of the past would react differently to audiences of the present is when Hobson says â€Å"It’s hardly decent at your time of life† (Maggie is only 30). However, at the time this book was written people married an awful lot younger, mainly because the average life expectancy back then was a lot younger. Whereas in our days people marry at this age and older still. Therefore, audiences of past and present would react differently. An audience of the past may have thought this comment was amusing, however, an audience of the present may not think it was such a big deal and may also look on it from Maggie’s point of view as a demoralizing comment. However, Hobson’s selfish snobbish ways would make audiences of both past and present want Maggie to marry Willie just to spite Hobson for his pathetic behaviour. An audience of the past would have found Maggie’s next line â€Å"And now I’ll tell you my terms† amusing because it is an example of role reversal because in those days the man was the master and was in charge and he was the one who laid down the terms and rules.  Maggie then goes on to state her terms, telling her father how much she believes her and Willie should be paid. To this Hobson replies, â€Å"Do you think I’m made of brass?† – brass is colloquialism for money. This line would have been amusing to an audience of the past because this is how the people in the streets in that area spoke like and they would be able to associate to it. A present audience may also have found this line amusing, however, some may not have understood it. Hobson tries to reassert his authority by shouting â€Å"I’ll show you what I propose, Maggie†. He then lifts up the trap door and shouts â€Å"Will Mossop!† He then unbuckles his belt and says to Maggie â€Å"I cannot leather you, my lass. You’re female, and exempt, but I can leather him†. Audiences of the present would be quite shocked by this behaviour as it is not a part of modern, civilized society any more. Such violence is frowned upon in our day. However, in the past, audiences would have been familiar with the term a good leathering, it would have been a regular occurrence. Therefore, they may have found this amusing rather than shocking. Hobson continues to try to assert his authority when he says to Willie â€Å"You’ve fallen on misfortune. Love’s led you astray†. He then says, â€Å"I don’t bear Malice, but we must beat the love from your body†. However, this backfires on Hobson when Willie says â€Å"You’ll not beat love in me†. Audiences of the past would have enjoyed this repliance because it is the little man against the boss and in those days the boss had all authority. Willie goes on to aggravate Hobson even more when he says â€Å"I’m none wanting thy Maggie, it’s her that’s after me, but I’ll tell you this, Mr Hobson: If you touch me with that belt, I’ll take her quick, aye, and stick to her like glue†. Again, audiences of the past would have enjoyed this because it is the little man against the all-powerful boss. Present audiences would have enjoyed this too because it would have illustrated Willies determination and independence. After being struck with the belt by Hobson for his remarks, Willie then says to Maggie out of rage â€Å"I’ve none kissed you yet. I shirked before. But, by gum, I’ll kiss you now†. He then kisses Maggie, not with passion but with temper. Audiences of past and present would have enjoyed this part because it is a bit of romantic comedy and Willie is standing up to Hobson, who doesn’t know what to do next. Also, from this scene, audiences of past and present would have observed that Maggie and Willie are sensible, practical and have a mature way of thinking. These characters would make Hobson’s anti-social behaviour more noticeable to the audiences. Finally, carrying on in his new found self-confidence, Willie adds â€Å"And if Mr Hobson raises up that strap again, I’ll do more. I’ll walk straight out of shop with thee and us two ‘ull set up for ourselves. Audiences of the past and present would have enjoyed this scene because not only is Hobson shocked by what Willie has said (Hobson stands in amazed indecision) but Willie is also shocked by the confidence he showed when he stood up to Hobson. Scene Four  The final section of the play I will examine is Act Three, pages 44 – 47.  This section follows on from a scene in which Hobson, drunk from a night in the Moonrakers, fell down a pub cellar and woke up to find he had received a fine for trespassing. Upon this charge Hobson goes to Maggie’s house on her wedding day, in the hope of some help from her.  In this section the roles of Maggie and Hobson are totally reversed. In this scene, Maggie is instead the one who is in charge, while Hobson has to take a more reserved, subservient stance; as he feels that his future is in her hands. This scene begins with a knock on the door and Hobson shouting â€Å"Are you in, Maggie?† Vickey, Maggie’s sister proclaims, â€Å"It’s father!† in a terrified voice. Albert, who is Vickey’s fianc, then adds â€Å"Oh, Lord†, whereas Maggie simply says, â€Å"What’s the matter? Are you afraid of him?† This would inform the audience that there may be a confrontational moment ahead.  Maggie soon takes charge of the situation by telling everybody, except Willie to go into the bedroom and that she’ll shout them before he’s gone. To this order Vickey then says â€Å"But we don’t want-â€Å", to which Maggie interrupts â€Å"Is this your house or mine?† and Vickey answers, â€Å"It’s your cellar†. Maggie then replies by saying â€Å"And I’m in charge of it†. Both audiences of the past and of the present would have found Vickey’s line amusing where she gets back at Maggie by illustrating the stark contrast of a house to a cellar. They also would have been amused by the fact that Maggie reasserts herself (I’m in charge of it) although she says to Willie you’re gaffer here whilst ordering him to sit down. Hobson is then invited in by Willie, who is now in the role of the master of the house. Audiences of the past and the present would have found it amusing when Maggie says, â€Å"You can sit down for five minutes, father. That sofa ‘ull bear your weight†. This line would also illustrate to audiences that Maggie is not threatened by Hobson and makes light of his arrival.  Maggie again shows that she is in charge when Willie says to Hobson â€Å"A piece of pork pie† and Hobson replies groaningly â€Å"Pork pie!† To this reply, Maggie pulls Hobson up sharply by saying â€Å"You’ll be sociable now you’re here, I hope†. Audiences of the past would have appreciated this amusing line because Maggie is pulling her father up sharp and she is in control in a commanding authority. Maggie’s authority is further displayed when she says to Hobson â€Å"Happen a piece of wedding cake ‘ull do you good†. Eating the cake Hobson shudders saying â€Å"It’s sweet† to which Maggie replies â€Å"That’s natural in cake†. Audiences of the past and present would have found this humorous because Hobson enjoys a drink, and being an alcoholic he cannot tolerate sweet things. This is made even more amusing when Maggie pushes the cake towards him and says, â€Å"Then there’s your cake, and you can eat it†, to which Hobson pushes the cake away but Maggie pushes it back again, giving Hobson no choice but to eat it, to which Hobson replies â€Å"You’re a hard woman† as he eats the cake and, as illustrated in the film Maggie watches over him as he eats it. This scene where Maggie forces Hobson to eat the cake would have been amusing to audiences past and present as well as viewed as something significant to all audiences as Maggie has already said â€Å"I’ve a wish to see my father sitting at my table eating my wedding cake on my wedding-day. Conclusion Harold Brighouse’s play Hobson’s Choice is a valuable document of what English society was like in 1915 (when it was written) and 1880 (when it takes place). I believe the play provides us with an important and useful insight to what society was like in those days in Britain as it provides us with an insight into the varying classes of people, how they were treated and their attitudes towards others. In Hobson’s Choice, Maggie, the daughter of Hobson, marries against her fathers wishes much to Hobson’s discomfort and dismay. There are similar themes such as this in modern society today, which are in some ways related to this theme illustrated in Hobson’s Choice. For example, members of families sometimes run away from home in the hope of being with someone who they would otherwise not be able to be with under their parents influence, or to simply escape from a home in which they feel much discomfort in. Also, just like in Hobson’s Choice, children in modern society today marry against their parent’s wishes in order to be with someone. I think audiences of the past and the present would have reacted similar and would have found the play humorous as it shows the underdog or the person who had nothing, Willie winning against someone who had everything, a shop owner and a pillar of society, Hobson. In Hobson’s Choice, Willie was a member of the poorer people and it was obvious that there was a barrier between him, who worked in a cellar, and those such as Hobson who owned the shop. However, today this barrier between the rich and the poor still exists more than ever, so it is clear that some things haven’t changed. I personally enjoyed Hobson’s Choice as I found it amusing throughout and it was an interesting and enjoyable story the way it illustrated what Salford was like in those days and how people were treated according to their class. My favourite parts of the story were probably when Willie stood up to Hobson under Maggie’s watchful eye and walked out of the shop with her, much to Hobson’s amazement, and when Maggie told Willie that he was the man for her and he sat down complete shock and amazement. If I was in the audience I would have enjoyed these parts because they are some of the most amusing parts of the play, mainly because of the way Willie acts. For example, it is amusing when Willie is shocked by the prospect of marriage and he sits down mopping his brow and says in a shocked voice, â€Å"I’m feeling queer-like† – this is highly amusing as the poor man is taken back. In the play Maggie comes across as the strongest character and somebody whom feminists within today’s society would be able to identify. Although in the era when the play set Maggie would have been a very unusual character. The character I would be most sympathetic with in the play would be Willie. This is because he is controlled throughout the play and he was the one who seemed to receive the most punishment, such as when Hobson tries to strike him with a belt for taking up with Maggie, even though he did not do the taking up. However, he would be the character I admire the most because of the way he didn’t give under the pressure of Hobson and stuck by Maggie.

Certainty and Insanity: Hamlet Essay

With no way to be absolutely certain about anything in life, it makes it hard to deliver the justice some may need. In William Shakespeare’s play Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, Hamlet never allows himself to come to an absolute certainty that Claudius killed his father. Whether it was his insanity or his morals, he is unable to take retribution for the murder of his father, which helps drive him insane. By not taking justice into his own hands, Hamlet’s indecision, and his insanity, ultimately leads him to his own death. When Hamlet first meets with the ghost of his father and hears the story of his death, he doesn’t want to believe the ghost outright. Upon finding out that Claudius has killed his father, Hamlet could have simply went to the Kings’ bedroom and slit his throat while he slept. He ignored this opportunity, which allowed his mind to begin questioning his actions. This is the first time Hamlet will delay the killing of Claudius. He begins to slip into insanity, which paralyzes his actions. Hamlet explains that the time for action isn’t right when he is speaking with Horatio the night he first saw the ghost. â€Å"The time is out of joint. O cursed spite, / That ever I was born to set it right† (I. v. 88-89). Hamlet explains that he understands that the situation of seeing the ghost or even the story may not be right, but he feels like he is the person to fix it. This puts a great deal of pressure on Hamlet, which starts the downward spiral of his insanity. Hamlet faces many dilemmas during the course of the play. He has the dilemma of having to come to terms with losing his father. He then has to deal with the anger he has towards his mother for her quick remarriage. Then when Hamlet finds out that his mother’s new husband, his uncle, was the murderer, he isn’t able to deal with any more. With dilemmas keep piling on top of one another, Hamlet has a psychotic break. As Ophelia explains it to her father, My Lord, as I was sewing in my closet, Lord Hamlet, with his doublet all unbraced; No hat upon his head; his stockings fouled, Ungartered, and down-gyved to his ankle; Pale as his shirt; his knees knocking each other; With a look so piteous in purport As if he had been loosed out of hell To speak of horrors, he comes before me. (II, i, 77-84) In this explanation, one begins to understand that Hamlet has been unable to deal with the death of his father, much less the fact that he was murdered by his uncle. The behaviors exhibited by Hamlet are not the actions a normal person would have, especially one of royalty. As Edward Foster explains, â€Å"That Hamlet loses his mental stability is arguable from his behavior toward Ophelia †¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Foster, par 17). A person not suffering from some form of psychosis would have been more put together and rational. Hamlet’s insanity allows him to sink into a reality that isn’t real, â€Å"†¦.results in the development if a sense of unreality in the affected individual† (â€Å"Hamlet†, par 2) While the ghosts’ story shouldn’t have left any doubt in Hamlet’s mind, he is still uncertain that Claudius did commit the act, fearing that the ghost could be the devil in disguise, just trying to make him a murderer. So in a poorly devised plan, Hamlet thinks he knows a way to get absolute certainty that Claudius killed his father. Hamlet’s plan is, â€Å"There is a play tonight before the king. / One scene of it comes near the circumstance / Which I have told thee of my father’s death† (III, ii. 68-70). This plan is used to gauge Claudius’s reaction, so as to tell if he has a guilty conscious or not. This is where Hamlet’s sanity is furthered questioned. If Claudius’s realizes this is Hamlet’s actions, then he can assume Hamlet knows about his terrible deed, and may send for him to be executed. John Alvis agrees by stating, â€Å"†¦Hamlet’s deeds appear ill considered and politically feeble† (par 9). While that does happen later, Hamlet gets the proof he needs, when Claudius stands during the play and exclaims, â€Å"Give me some light, away!† (III, ii, 252) The next time that Hamlet delays in killing Claudius, it is because he finds Claudius kneeling in prayer after the play. Hamlet assumes Claudius is asking repentance for the killing of his father, thus would still get to walk through Heaven’s gate with a pure and clean soul. Hamlet knows that his father wasn’t afforded this luxury by his words in Act 1 when the ghost said, â€Å"†¦ Cut off even in the blossoms of my sin, / †¦/ No reckoning made, but sent to my account / With all my imperfections on my head† (I, v. 76-79). While King Hamlet was robbed of his chance to repent his sins,  young Hamlet would not be so easy to allow Claudius to die after being forgiven of his. â€Å"†¦ he believes that Claudius, killed at prayer, would not be damned to hell.† (â€Å"Hamlet† par 2) Hamlet believes that allowing Claudius to go to heaven would be just as bad as if he murdered his father. Although Claudius’s reaction is enough certainty for almost anyone, the freak out by Claudius still doesn’t satisfy Hamlet. If Hamlet was clear minded, he would be able to see the truth and complete his promise to his father. Hamlet continues to allow doubt to dictate his actions. â€Å"Contagion to this world. Now I could drink hot blood / And do such bitter business as the bitter day / Would quake to look on †¦Ã¢â‚¬  (III, ii, 365-367) The words Hamlet uses do not show the stability that he thinks he has. Hamlet’s insanity plays such a vital role in his delay of justice against Claudius. He is so wound up in his own mind that he has a hard time accepting that he is the reason of his delay. He spends so much time plotting and planning, he can never really convince himself to do the act. He is also stuck in a realm of pity. Poor, poor Hamlet. He shows this in his soliloquy: †¦ Am I a coward? Who calls me â€Å"villain†? Breaks my pate across? Plucks off my beard and blows it in my face? Tweaks me by the nose? Gives me the lie i’ th’ throat? As deep as to the lungs? Who does me this? Ha! ‘Swounds, I should take it, for it cannot be But I am pigeon-livered and lack gall To make the oppression bitter, or ere this I should have fatted all the region kites With this slave’s offal. Bloody, bawdy villain! (II, ii, 547-557) His self-pity blinds him to his task, and allows the pressures of that task to take over, and allows him to sink into insanity a little more. He knows that he should have already taken Claudius’s life, but because his cowardliness, he has failed to do it, and in turn, sinks further in his self-pity. As Hamlet’s madness continues, his delay makes him responsible for the  deaths of so many others. Had he killed Claudius sooner, the life of his mother, Polonius and Ophelia could have been saved. As Alvis explains, â€Å"By his delay Hamlet has contributed to his mother’s death, and by his own imprudent decisions he has made himself responsible for the murder of Polonius, the consequent madness and death of Ophelia†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (par 12). With that weighing on Hamlet’s mind, he would not have been able to return to a state of sanity anyway, as he had such a guilty conscious anyway. Through all of Hamlet’s delay, he finally makes good on his promise of revenge in the final acts of the play. As Foster explains, â€Å"†¦ he strikes his uncle only after he has discovered Claudius’s final scheme to kill him† (Foster, par 17). While Hamlet has delayed his killing of Claudius throughout the entire play, it wasn’t until the very end of the play that he asserts his authority and locks the door upon his mother dying, â€Å"O villainy! Ho, let the door be locked. / Treachery! Seek it out† (V, ii, 313-314). Laertes then explains the plot of Claudius to kill Hamlet, and he forces Claudius to drink his own poison. This is a certain type of justice in its own. Karma, let’s say. In the play Hamlet, many things take place that alert the audience to the instability of Hamlet. Upon losing his father, his mother quickly remarried her late husband’s brother. Hamlet’s father came back as a ghost to tell Hamlet that he was damned to hell because his brother had killed him. He promised his father that he would seek revenge for his death. All of these things mount together and place a heavy burden on Hamlet. As he progressively gets worse, he begins to alienate everyone in his life, feeding them stories and dancing around questions. He denies things he has given to Ophelia, and denies he had ever loved her. The one person who he trusts the most and the only person he allows to be a part of his plan is Horatio. Horatio is the balance for Hamlet. When it appears Hamlet has gone a little too far, Horatio is able to center him and bring him back to this realm of reality. Hamlet has delayed the death of Claudius because of insanity, but also because of his sanity. Wavering between the two, Hamlet never allows himself the chance to accept his duties. He never actually commits the revenge as promised, but the job does get done in the end.

How to Download and Install Watcom C/C++ Compiler