20th Century Lit: The Death of God and the Birth of the Modern Consciousness

20th Century Lit: The Death of God and the Birth of the Modern Consciousness

"God is dead." This quote is attributed to Nietzsche, existentialist philosopher. This line is echoed in Elie Wiesel's Night, in an episode where he witnesses a young boy being hanged on the gallows in a concentration camp--another onlooker says that God is hanging on the gallows there with him. This is the question that Elie deals with throughout his memoir--where is God?--and indeed a question that reverberated throughout the world in the 20th century. One hundred years marked by amazing advances and fantastic atrocities; the modern world--and the modern conception of "hero"--changed forever with the advent of modern warfare. To get a sense of how the modern consciousness changed, here is the entire Nietzsche quote in context:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

20th century literature reflects this sense of isolation, alienation and desperation within man. We find ourselves now, in the 21st century, a world with technology and standards of living that could never have been imagined even a century ago. Yet we also live in a world that's more fragile than ever; the world is once again "flat" with communication technology that brings us closer together, yet keeps us ironically impersonal. We accept conflict and terror(ism) as a part of our every-day lives. But the literature also reflected a sense of hope--in exploring ourselves, our minds, our realities--hope that we can rediscover that which allows us to survive, and indeed thrive, in the world that we've created. 

*   *   *
We end our journey through Western literature with the 20th-century piece Night, which describes Elie Wiesel's horrific experience surviving the Holocaust of World War II. For your consideration, I've done some research to supplement our reading. World War II and the Holocaust are immense historical events to try to tackle; for your final reflections, I'd like you to do a little outside reading to support our understanding of Night.
*   *   *

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER:
1) The Holocaust was not perpetrated by one individual. Hitler only took one life--his own. Nor did the Holocaust happen overnight; it was systematized over nearly a decade, and implicated hundreds and thousands of people who were involved. Estimates put the death toll of WWII at around 32 million people (take the population of San Jose and multiply by 30...), around 6 million of whom were killed in concentration camps, which manufactured wholesale death. Death on that scale was an institution, a pervasive way of thinking of a society. How could people come to believe that genocide was acceptable? Explore the following link, to get some background on the Nazi ideology, and what led to the Holocaust, and report on your findings. Try to help the class answer, "what led to this atrocity?"

• http://www.ushmm.org/education/foreducators/resource/

(Note: I have uploaded shorter versions of the articles on my website, which you can read online or download. Some articles are still many pages, so be careful about printing. <<https://sites.google.com/a/mitty.com/franklin/Home/world-literature/world-lit-resources>>)

2) How is it that genocides still occur in the world? Use the links below to research one of the following three contemporary holocausts and report on your findings. Also, fill out the corresponding worksheet, "Assessing Responsibility" and share during your report.

• Briefing paper, Rwanda: http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/alert/rwanda/contents/01-overview/
• Worksheet: http://www.ushmm.org/education/foreducators/prodev/beli/2003/staff03/pdf/assessment_rwanda.pdf
  

• Background information on Bosnia: http://www.friendsofbosnia.org/edu_bos.html
• Worksheet: http://www.ushmm.org/education/foreducators/prodev/beli/2003/staff03/pdf/assessment_balkan.pdf
  

• Briefing paper, Darfur: http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/alert/darfur/contents/01-overview/
• Worksheet: http://www.ushmm.org/education/foreducators/prodev/beli/2003/staff03/pdf/assessment_darfur.pdf 

Other helpful links:

• Committee on Conscience ("Responding to Genocide"): http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/
  

• Holocaust Encyclopedia: www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/ 

• What is genocide? http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007043

• Genocide Timeline: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007095

• What is genocide? http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/history/
  

• History and Concept of Genocide: http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/analysis/analysis_all.php?category=02-themes&topic=01-history 

ORAL PRESENTATIONS ("Blog Response") 11/30/09

For those of you who have to do an oral presentation in the last weeks who have NOT already posted to the blog:

You may only respond to Night from here on out. That means you can do a Reader's Response, or a Research Lite. I will be posting list of resources on the blog (and also on the webpage) to do some outside research for Night.

I know this eliminates an option that previous students had, but I'd like to focus our attention in the last two weeks on Night, since there is so much there to discuss. Once the research resources are posted, they will include leading questions, which you may use as a sort of "Blog Response," but I will not be posting a traditional blog on the story, as I don't think I could do justice to explaining all of WWII and the Holocaust.

If you have not yet presented, but you already posted your blog response, you'll be able to present on that. *Note: Anyone may respond to the two most recent blogs ("Enlightenment" and "19th C. Showdown") for extra credit.

~Mr. Franklin

19th Century Showdown: The Romantics and the Realists

19th Century Showdown: The Romantics and the Realists
(The subtitle was going to be "Romantics, Realists, Renaissance Writers, and Revolutionaries," but I thought that would be overkill to include in the blog...)

The 19th C. (1800-1900) in Europe marks an important shift in the development of 20th C. Western society, and what we now take for granted in the 21st Century. Before we delve into the debate between these two camps, we need to recall the significance of the Renaissance on the 19th C.

Yes, Shakespeare is largely to blame for most of what transpired in Europe in the 1900s! Think back to our lesson on Renaissance sonnets: we distinguished between the Petrachan idea--romantic, melodramatic, intensely feeling. Petrach likely would be considered "emo" (the sensitive kind, not the goth kind) if he were alive today. Think Romeo--he was the quintessential Petrarchan lover. He was ready to light himself on fire and throw himself into on-coming traffic (carriages, that is) over a girl who didn't even know he existed, whom he promptly forgot about after seeing Juliet for the first time; oh, and he marries this 13-year old girl less than 12 hours later. Insert emo stereotypes here.

Shakespeare, quite eloquently and respectfully, gave his view of love to contrast Petrarch. Think of the sonnet we read which begins, "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun." He goes on to describe what seems to be a quite unattractive woman whom he's nonetheless in love with. He was the more mature, more modern lover of the time. His teenage lover was the kid who'd been held back, who knew the ropes; the literary high school cougar-hunter. He gave a more "realistic" ideal of love to contrast Petrarch's, which was no doubt influenced by the Renaissance emphasis on chivalry and courtly love. Note, that they both dealt with the same topics--love, time, nature, regret--but approached them somewhat differently. Both seem to reach the conclusion of carpe diem--that life (and love) is fleeting, and that we should enjoy it while we can.

Enter the 19th Century writers. They took their cues from Petrarch and Shakespeare. They found themselves in the arena of two distinct but intertwined revolutions: the Industrial Revolution, and the political revolutions of the Americas, England, France, and darn near every other Western European country. They saw their world changing around them, and the glory of the Renaissance man became the agony of the urban man; cities developed, and so did slums. Nature became more and more distant to people who were forced to work and labor in unfit conditions to survive. The widening gap between rich and poor was bridged by a rising middle class who was increasingly unhappy with government. Artists became activists, and began using their art and literature to strive for change in society. Let's look at the different approaches of the two.

The Romantics
In this corner is the 19th C.'s version of a hippie: the Romantic writers wanted to break away from rules and established order, get back in touch with their feelings, and reconnect to nature. They valued simplicity and individuality, and sought spirituality in an increasingly secular world. They did not reject reason, but lobbied for the elevation of the imagination, and revolted against the restrictions imposed by classical aristocratic ideas. You can just see them barefoot in the woods, reading poetry to each other from recycled books while driving Prius's (or free-range horse-drawn buggies made from organic trees, or whatever). 

The Realists
In this corner is 19th C.'s version of the fist-pumping activist: the Realist writers sought to tether their experience by describing it in raw, factual detail, and hopefully therefore reforming it. They also had a great deal of concern over social institutions, but, of course, couldn't break away to their cabin in the woods because of their 12-hour days at the factory, six days a week. Rather than break away from the rules, they sought to to break the rules and the established order. They wrote mostly stories, novels and plays like Les Miserables, War and Peace, Crime and Punishment, and even Frankenstein to warn of the dangers of unbridled industrialization and unchecked political power. You can just see them drinking their black coffee and smoking their cigarettes and hating it, listening to underground radio, scoffing at the Romantics, and planning on overthrowing the government.

You'll notice that I've not ever mentioned that the Romantics and the Realists were against each other--this is not "Romantics vs. Realists," this is "Romantics and Realists." They both were looking at the same metaphorical coin, just from different proverbial sides. They both realized the negative affects of industrialism and the impact civil and political uprisings were having on their society; they just went about dealing with that reality in somewhat different ways. They were not very different at all, and indeed many authors of the period could be classified as both romantic and realist. What they did succeed in doing, though, was ushering a new typed of "hero" in the Western world (aha, yes, you knew we'd come back to that idea, right?). Heroes are no longer warriors or knights, nor just gentlemen (or noble ladies), explorers, or captains of industry. The "pen is mightier than the sword" idea had caught on. (Think American Revolution; though many of those who had a hand in it did fight, just as many contributed simply by writing and voicing their ideas.) Although, history is somewhat cyclical; the 20th century would see the return of the idea of "might makes right" with several international conflicts, which changed indelibly the idea of and perhaps the belief in the concept of "hero"...

*     *     *
QUESTION TO CONSIDER
*Note: You may NOT use this question as a "Blog Response" for your oral presentation, but you may respond to it for 1pt in the extra credit category.


Do you consider yourself more "romantic" or more "realist"? (Be aware that I've oversimplified the definitions in my entry, and be aware that, although I do not like hippies, I am a romantic at heart.) Do you see yourself as a lover or a fighter? In your response, try to define what you think of as "romantic" or "realist," and explain why you think you fit that definition.

 

Elucidating the Enlightenment

Elucidating the Enlightenment

The Enlightenment (1650-1800), also known as the "Age of Reason," continued the forward momentum of the Renaissance. It held the dual qualities of both valuing formal qualities and structure, and challenging authority (specifically of the Church). Remember that this is a world where God (or the gods) is no longer the center of the universe--man is. With the discovery of new scientific ideas, the European world took on a more "clock-work" feel; one of the prevalent ideas of the time was that everything was governed by rules that could be discovered. Isaac Newton and Renee Descartes, among others, saw a world that wasn't mysterious, but discernable; however, the Enlightenment thinkers didn't have the unbridled optimism of the Renaissance thinkers. They saw human ability as great, but also realized that the world often fell short of ideal standards.

Ideas such as rationalism and empiricism gave way to political ideologies as well. Because the universe was governed by unchanging laws, that meant man was as well; because we were born with a "tabula rasa" (blank slate) and must understand our world through experience as well as logic, that justifies man's basic equality. Thinkers like Hobbes, Rouseau, and Locke (who inspired America's "founding fathers") mostly agreed that good or bad, man's nature was affected (and mostly corrupted) by society and social institutions. Artists joined in on that thinking; art and literature began to not just reflect society, but offer social commentary on it, and then criticize it... and then challenge it. Just as the Renaissance thinkers challenged the Church and God, the Enlightenment thinkers began challenging the government and social institutions. These thinkers set the stage for the "revolutionary fever" that was about to boil over, that would change the Western world more than the Plague and H1N1 combined. Technological advancement and political upheaval in Western Europe and the Americas set the agenda for the next two centuries, setting the foundations for discourse in the 20th and 21st centuries...

*      *     *
QUESTION TO CONSIDER:
Do you think society has a positive or negative effect on individuals? On communities? Why? You should, of course, first explain whether you think human nature is basically good, selfless, or basically bad, selfish. Are our biological urges pushing us to the preservation of self or others, and how does society impact that? Are we ruined or saved by society? Feel free to speculate; you can come up with an answer that's somewhere in the middle.

*Note: You may NOT use this question as a "Blog Response" for your oral presentation, but you may respond to it for 1pt in the extra credit category.

The Impossible Dream: Mediocrity in Times of Meritocracy

As we read Don Quixote, remember our focus for this unit: the Middle Ages and Renaissance are the link between the Classical era and the Modern era. This period of more than a thousand years helps us understand how the Western world (and the Western Ideal) developed into what it is today. Here's a short recap of what we've discovered so far about the hero idea:

Greco-Roman Hero: More warrior than leader, the idea of heroism in classical literature revolved around societal values of excellence, pride, and property. The hero is tragic and achieves his status through heroic deeds and adventures; his fate seems out of his hands, and his end is usually dismal. Examples: Oedipus, Achilles, Hector

Medieval Hero: The hero in the Middle Ages is largely transformed by a shift from polytheistic ideas of religion to a monotheistic religion--Christianity--which became the main source of power and authority in society. The hero embodied decorum and loyalty, and then chivalry. His allegiance shifted from his lord to his lady; although his journey was marked by hardships, he usually had a reward (even if it was only in the afterlife). Examples: Roland, Knight (from "Wife of Bath")

Renaissance Hero: The hero now looks quite different; we don't see him in the midst of physical battles, but emotional, mental and spiritual battles. Therefore his journey is also a bit different. It may sound like an inspirational card from Hallmark, but the their goals are really about the journey, not the destination. Success or reward, then, takes on a much less physical form.  Examples: Dante, Federigo

Enter Don Quixote, the Renaissance "hero." I use my quotation marks here, because there is some debate to be had about whether or not Quixote is in fact heroic. Let's look at his track record: He's old, poor, out of his mind... and he gets everything wrong. He dies a lonely and broken man, but only after he's been literally forced to give up his dreams. And what dreams he had; he aimed high, and insisted on upholding an outdated code of chivalry in a world what didn't care to be heroic. This leads to the question: does Don Quixote get an "A" for effort? Is it okay that he tried his best, that he kept on trying, that he went down fighting? Or does all that matter is the fact that he fails?

Let's try to make this more relevant to us: You, as high school students, exist in a culture of meritocracy. In other words, you are constantly being judged and are constantly competing; winning isn't the only thing, it's everything. You've got to have the GPA, got to play the sport, got to do the service hours, got to score high on SAT's, all so you can get into a good college and get a good job and have a good life. There is an incredible amount of pressure on you to achieve. Unfortunately, this pressure to achieve is sometimes at odds with your actual growth; if the highest concern is the grade (or the points) and not the learning, then you might cut corners. If the highest concern is the win and not the development, then you might take steroids. When average doesn't cut it and all that matters is the end result, then the value of the steps in the process start to diminish. If you don't have a 4.something, you aren't worth mentioning. No "A's" for effort; a fail is a fail. Don Quixote's world doesn't seem quite so far away, now does it?

Miguel de Cervantes surrounded Don Quixote with people who ridiculed him because he dreamed big but simply wasn't good enough. And although we laugh at him, in the end we may pity him, as facing the reality of his own mediocrity actually leads Quixote to his death. In our case, life isn't quite as tragic, but when we constantly hold ourselves up to the standard of others, it can feel like jousting against windmills. In a world of 4.something GPA's, all-star athletics... how does the average person feel "heroic"? I tell you in class that the "points" don't matter, that you will wake up in 20 years and have absolutely no memory of that 5-point homework assignment you languished over; but by then, of course, you may be focused on a very different kind of "point"...

QUESTION TO CONSIDER:
(Just one question)

1) Reflect on the questions embedded in the blog: Do you agree or disagree that our society is based, for better or worse, on "winning"? Is competition a good thing or a bad thing? To anchor this to the text, is the character Don Quixote sympathetic, or pathetic? In other words, do we praise him for pursuing his ambitions, or do we criticize him for being unrealistic?

Luck Be a Lady to Knight: A View of Women in Western Lit

The Renaissance is a period of about 250 years in Western Civilization that marks the end of what we call the Middle Ages. It is the era of European culture that saw the death of feudalism and the growth of nationalism. It witnessed the end of the unilateral power of the church and the beginning of the modern nation-state. And yet is was a "rebirth" in several important ways: First, it was the rebirth of classic Greek and Roman ideas. The rediscovery of ancient texts (and the growth in literacy) fueled the Renaissance thinkers. Second, it was the rebirth of interest in the physical world; while Medieval Europeans were largely concerned with the afterlife, Renaissance thinkers turned their attention to the way the world and nature functioned. This, in turn, gave rise to a third rebirth in interest in the sciences and humanities, which lead to drastic technological advances and geographic discoveries. The broadening of the Renaissance man's world--indeed, the shifting focus away from God to man--is perhaps the single most significant "rebirth," placing man at the center of his own universe.

Europe during the Renaissance was still, then, a "man's world;" as we look at our next frame story, Boccaccio's Tale of the Falcon, we are reminded of themes brought up by Chaucer, and must also be conscious that we are still looking at a view of women through the eyes of men. To give some background on the importance of Boccaccio's work: he set out to authentically represent the Renaissance confidence in human ability and delight in the diversity of human experience. His overriding theme asserts throughout his hundred tales that a truly noble individual must accept the consequences of his actions and confine his desire to what is humanly possible. In that, though, he insists that what is humanly possible is a usually a great deal, and that we can often overcome our fortune or learn to exploit it.

Boccaccio is quite sympathetic and understanding towards human aspirations and emotions. He creates a "hero," Federigo, who is sympathetic and who we can relate to. But what about the woman in the tale, Mona; although we can maybe relate to her paternal motivations, is she sympathetic? Do we pity her? Despite her desire to save her son, do we approve of her methods of obtaining the falcon? What is being said about Renaissance women here?

It seems that there are, at least, two ways we can read the women we've encountered in the the literature we've covered thus far: they are either getting a bad rap, or they are being (somewhat) accurately portrayed. Let's look at the roster:

• Jocasta. She was actually a pretty good mom to her husband, Oedipus, once she found out that he was her son. Ignore the fact that she sent her infant son to die in the wilderness based on a prophecy; that's how the Greek's rolled. You don't mess with the prophecies. You do what you have to do, or risk the wrath of the gods. 

• Helen (of Sparta). Okay, no way to spin this one positively; she single-handedly led to the 10-year conflict, the Trojan War. But she did it for love (right?). Ignore the fact that she was married at the time; that's how the Greek's rolled. You don't mess with the will of the gods, or...  well, you get the picture.
  

• Trojan Women. We get just snippets of other women connected to the Trojan War--Hector's mother and wife, Achille's slave-girls, even the goddesses who intervene on the side of the Spartans (Hera, Athena, Thetis). Maybe we don't get enough from them to draw any conclusions...

• Roland's Wife. Hmm, all we know is she's the reason why Ganelon hates Roland so much and sets him up for the big fall. She's not even a character in the story, and she's still causing problems...

• Chaucer's Angels. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) We already discussed last blog the various women Chaucer depicts in his Cantebury Tales. Each of them really represents a one-dimensional quality of women; taken together, maybe they give us a complete picture of what Chaucer thought of the women of his day. But, again, we are stuck looking through Chaucer's eyes. 

• Dante's Angel. All we know of Beatrice in real life is that he loved her but was never really able to pull off a relationship with her. In the story, she is the one who sends Virgil to rescue him and join her in the Mount of Joy, Heaven. She serves as a beacon to him, although we never see her in the story, and in some ways is responsible for Dante's transformation (or, at least, his journey). 

We have quite a character to round out the list: the wealthy and wily Mona. This collection of women gives us quite a bit to discuss in terms of the role of women in society and marriage...

*      *      *
CRITICAL QUESTIONS

1) Think about the questions from the seminar prep (p. 26-27 in the packet); what are the most important traits you (personally) look for in a significant other? As a follow up question, think back to the "Wife of Bath" interviews; what do you think causes relationships to succeed or fail? (Answer both.)

2) Think about the female figures we've encountered in the literature we've read thus far; which character do you relate with most? (Okay, fellas--you can answer this question also. Which character do you relate to; in other words, which one makes the most sense to you?) Is there a female character we've read that gives us a depiction of women that's actually close to reality? Specifically, what is your judgment of Mona?

3) Think about the following statements, and consider the response by the "experts." What do you think about these statements? What do you think about the expert opinions? Choose two statements to respond to:

a. Play Hard to Get
Sam Yagan, dating-website cofounder: Playing hard to get starts the relationship off on a deceptive foot. If you want your relationship to be based on trust, honesty, and communication, why would you begin it like that?

Greg Behrendt, coauthor of He’s Just Not That Into You: You shouldn’t play hard to get; you should be hard to get, because your life is so busy and fulfilling. My wife and I call it being a MOD―a moving object of desire.

b. Your Spouse Shouldn’t Be Your Best Friend
Pepper Schwartz, sociologist: I agree. I think you’re asking a lot of your marriage to have the level of confidentiality, truthfulness, and disclosure that a best friendship has. Your marriage can fulfill only so many roles.

Barbara De Angelis, personal-development expert: I disagree. If your spouse isn’t your best friend, then what is he? I think it’s important that you not only love him but like him a lot, too.

John Gray, author of Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus: I have no problem with partners who are best friends, but you should have other close friends to confide in as well―especially when you are having relationship difficulties and need time away from your spouse. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

c. You Can Learn to Love Someone
Judy Kuriansky, sex therapist: That’s true, depending on how you define love. You may not have the love-at-first-sight kind of love, but the deep companion kind of love―in terms of trusting each other and being a team―can develop over time.

Behrendt: No, that sounds like settling. I don’t believe in settling, because it’s not fair to the person you’re with or yourself. It’s not like settling on an apartment you don’t love but can live with.


d. There Is Such a Thing As Love at First Sight
Ellen Wachtel, couples therapist: False. Often it takes time for love to develop. For some people, physical chemistry plays such a big role at the outset that it is mistaken for love.

Schwartz: It’s a romantic story when it works out, but you don’t hear about the relationships that end badly. Relationships start slow and build; they aren’t necessarily wonderful from the start.

Howard J. Markman, psychologist: You’ll quickly know if you’re attracted to each other, but not if you’re compatible or fit to stick together through tough times.

e.The Way to a Man’s Heart Is Through His Stomach
De Angelis: The way to a man’s heart is through his heart. Men want a woman who is going to be a great friend and companion―and if they have to order takeout, so be it!

Kuriansky: It’s true if he loves food, but that part about having to feed the needs of his heart is true, too. Still, don’t lose sight of your own needs. For a relationship to be successful, both partners need to feel pleased and fulfilled.

Gray: You’re off by about six inches. Sex is the direct way to a man’s heart.

Mr. Franklin, teacher extraordinaire: The way to a man's heart is through his rib-cage.