Category Archives: Archives

Indie Game Development

Leave a reply

Jared Emry

Independent video games, or indie games, have started to receive more attention since about 2005.  Indie Gaming and Development has become a popular hobby for many people.  Some popular indie games include Uplink, Minecraft, and Amnesia.  Indie games are created by individuals or small teams and are therefore different from the typical game created by the larger companies.  Instead of hundreds or thousands of people working on a single project, there could only be a handful of people working on a game.  These individuals may work alone or gather a small team to build a game.  This is a guide to developing such a game.  There are three parts to a good game that must be observed: concept, aesthetic, and gameplay.  Indie games are partially unique by the fact anyone can create one, which creates a demand for guides such as this.  The concepts of this guide could very well guide the creation of any game and therefore the indies as well.

Indie games are often conceptually unique in the industry.  Uplink, for example, mimics a new operating system on your computer as you play the part of a freelance hacker.  PC Format called it, “A true original, paranoia has never been so much fun….”  In the game you have to upgrade your computer, get new software, and try to become an elite hacker.  The player roams the Internet (a fake in-game Internet) and hacks corporate and government systems in an effort to fulfill anonymous contracts for money.  The player can choose which side to be on as the story begins; will he help ARC create the virus known as Revelation, or will he help Arunmor make the counter-virus, Faith.  The player can even work for both corporations at the same time.  The game is done in the style of hacking seen in Hollywood and is truly unique.  Indie games must be conceptually unique.  This does not mean the game needs to be experimental, like Slave of God; the game merely needs to be original.  For example, Slave of God is an experimental game that relies on psychedelic textures and flashing lights to provide a unique gameplay and maybe a seizure.  Experimental games are usually radical departures from orthodox gaming.  Another example of an experimental game would be a game known as Roulette.  Roulette is a video game that consists of video segments of actors acting out a game of Russian Roulette.  The player takes part in the game of Russian Roulette against an actual video.  This game relies on the dark suspense of Russian Roulette, but without anyone being harmed in the process.  Vesper.5 is another experimental indie game that has become popular.  It tries to portray the concept of ritual.  The game is designed in such a way the player can only take one step a day through the game’s world.  The game takes a minimum of 100 days to complete, so it requires the game to be treated ritualistically to be completed.  What David Reimer once said is still true, “Reinventing the wheel is a trap.”  Trying to make the next Polybius may be a high and mighty goal, but changing the basis of something is no easy task.  Certainly experimental games can be successful and earn a cult following, however the wheel does not have to be reinvented for a good indie game to be created.  Being innovative is good, but don’t strain yourself trying to make something entirely new.  The concept is the broad view of the game: it contains the game’s world, mythologies, and the characters that inhabit it.  Don’t let the effort of forever trying to come up with something new under the sun stop you from creating a concept at all.  Work with what you know and then expand.  The indie game must be conceptually unique or original.  Start with the orthodox form of a typical game in the genre you want to work with.  If you are making a first-person shooter, then you might want to play Doom, Wolfenstien3D, or Quake; those games are the basis of the modern first-person shooter.  Use the form (but not necessarily using the same engine) used for those games.  The form is really just the basic flow of the game’s plot and how its story is typically told.  From this basis the story is woven.  The concept contains additions to the form and its originality.  The concept can range to just about anything.  Once you have started working with more orthodox concepts, the unorthodox will probably be easier.  The concept is just an idea that can be manifested into the game.  The better a developer is, the better concept he can use to symbolically portray the concept in the video game.

The second part is the aesthetic component of the game.  Some indie games like Amnesia have AAA-quality graphics, however this is not necessary.  The graphics need to match the game.  Amnesia’s AAA graphics were suited to the game, which is part of what made it so good.  Amnesia used light effects and foggy aesthetic touches to maximize the game’s suspense and horror.  The music it used fit the old castle with its creepy undertones and sound effects.  Amnesia could not have been done in 8-bit or 16-bit; it had to be done with a certain level of graphical (and audio quality) sophistication or else it would have lost the elements that made it so good.  Uplink’s menu-based system similarly relied mostly on just pictures that popped up when a button was clicked.  These graphics were equally stunning and fitting to the game, and the music made you feel like a hacker.  Uplink also relied on these aesthetic qualities for the game, but they were not the same graphics that Amnesia used.  Uplink’s concept would simply have not worked in an Amnesia aesthetic.  Similarly, all game concepts must be linked to an appropriate aesthetic.  If you want to make a sci-fi, you need sci-fi-looking stuff and sci-fi-sounding stuff because belief cannot be totally dismissed from the game.  The aesthetics must capture the belief of the player.  Capturing belief does not rely on the realism of the graphics but on consistencies.  An 8-bit sci-fi game would be unbelievable if the graphic for a sword was used instead of a ray gun; the same holds true for all types of graphics.  A sword simply is not a ray gun.  The belief can be captured by trading out the sword for a graphic of a gun.  It needs to be understood the graphics are a symbolic representation of the world of the game.  The game does not need to be as realistic as possible because the graphics are merely symbolic.  The game is not in the graphics; it is in the concept.  The aesthetics are the symbols used to portray the concept.  The game must use the aesthetics that best portray the concept.  The graphics should not be understood as simply one texture (or group of pixels) moving across another because a computer script simply moves it, but as a representation of a life with its own background and mythology.  The story told is real.  The aesthetic links the concept to the player.  The indie game, Space Funeral, uses a 16-bit graphic and a similarly situated soundtrack to create a disturbing yet comic aesthetic.  If Space Funeral had been in Amnesia’s or Uplink’s aesthetics, the game would be terrible.  Even though the story would be told, the concept would be lost.  The aesthetic qualities of the game must match the concept.  The aesthetics must always be polished and excellently done, but the quality (referring to resolution and type, not to the excellence of the graphics themselves) must match the game.  This area is also where the difference between indie games and typical games is most pronounced.  The major game publishers only cater to newer graphics.  8-bit, 16-bit, and other outdated graphics are not to be found on the popular new consoles (except in packaged classic games).  This methodology wrongly closes the door to different kinds of game play, however indie games provide a solution by providing new games with older graphics styles.

The third part is gameplay.  Gameplay needs to be good, or the game will be too frustrating, too repetitive, or too easy for anyone to care about.  If you want the concept of the game to be remembered by the players, then you need to make the gameplay suitable and memorable.  There are three kinds of players: players with skill, players with money, and players with time.  Each section of players can obviously overlap.  A good gameplay needs to target at least one of those groups, and a better gameplay maximizes the target range.  If the gameplay fails to reach any of those groups, then the game might still be able to get a cult following (which is pretty cool).  The gameplay must stay true to the concept and is always subservient to the concept in a good game.

There are two ways gameplay must be good.  First, the controls must be working at a very high standard.  If a player cannot control the avatar (the player’s representation in the game’s world), then the player cannot interact with the world properly and therefore cannot be immersed into the world; a disconnect is created.  A game is always a mental contest, either against another player or against a computer.  If the game does not provide a method for the mind of the player to effectively control the avatar, then the game does not provide a fair ground for the mental contest.  The player must compensate for the computer’s shortcomings in order to play against the computer.  It is possible to successfully compensate, but it detracts from the gameplay.  This kind of mistake in gameplay will rarely produce a cult following.  Another mistake in this first way gameplay must be good is grammar and spelling.  Spelling and grammar errors separate the player from the game because language is the gateway to reality (a topic for another time).  A game with bad grammar and spelling is at the very least unprofessional and shows bad quality or lack of interest between the developer and his game.  Luckily, this grammar rule is sometimes waved by the players for translations, especially hacked translations.  Glitches and bugs can often lead to a bad gameplay.  If the glitches or bugs are harmful to the players’ interactions in the world, these glitches and bugs negatively affect the gameplay.  However, there is an occasional glitch or bug that can actually help the game by providing something interesting for the players to examine and play with.  These glitches and bugs tend to be rare and cannot be purposefully programmed into the game.  Along with the glitches and bugs are the Easter Eggs  Easter Eggs are small details programmed into the game that reference something else iconic to pop-culture or to specific cult favorites; they are typically meant to be hard to find and are kind of like purposeful bugs in my opinion.  A few well-placed Easter Eggs are always nice.

The second half of the gameplay equation is more abstract and far more relative.  It is best described in examples because a set definition would be nearly impossible.  The best gameplay always temporarily absorbs the player into the game and immerses him in the events of the virtual world.  The way it is done is extremely hard to define.  The gameplay must here balance the flow of the game.  The pace of the game must be suited to the concept.  The leveling, upgrading, available currency, costs, monster difficulties, skills, and everything else in the game must be balanced.  This gives the game consistency, which allows the player to stay immersed by not providing anything too easy as to bore the player or too difficult for the player to complete.  Challenge must be in the game, but the game cannot be extremely frustrating or impossible as to keep the players away.  Goldilocks likes everything to be just right.  The game must entice the player with the wonder of what might lie behind the next corner or the next hill and urge the player onward through the game.  Without challenge, the secret behind the next corner is diminished of its potential wonder and sentimental worth.  The harder the challenge and the greater the risks, the greater the payoff is to the player.  The reward should always be suitable to the task.  What the gameplay looks like is extremely varied, from Unmanned (a game meant to follow the average day of the average person in the U.S. Army, from waking to sleeping) to Diablo (where the player runs around hacking and slashing stuff with a weapon).  Gameplay is also damaged by repetition. Final Fantasy would be stupid if the only enemies ever fought were slimes.  New elements throughout the game help make a game continue to be interesting and immersive.  The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is a good example of great gameplay.  Oblivion is not an indie game, but the gameplay rules still apply.  The player controls the avatar through a vast world, making decisions and fighting monsters.  The gameplay is good in Oblivion because the controls are suitable, easy to learn, and effective.  The game is immersive and allows its aesthetics to be enjoyed through the gameplay.  As the player progresses through the game and levels up, the monsters also level up.  The strengthening of the monsters alongside the player makes sure battles don’t become boringly easy.  The battles are maintained at a challenge and risk is continually present.  On top of that, the game also adds more monsters as the player progresses allowing for new and more interesting battles.

The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, another non-indie game, is a great example of a game with a skewed gameplay.  In Skyward Sword, the controls of the Nintendo Wii stopped the avatar from being fully controllable, which is bad because the avatar is supposed to be the player incarnate in the virtual world.  The avatar should be responsive just like someone’s real body.  On top of that unfortunate mistake, the game also featured a character that acted as a guide.  Unfortunately, the character appeared constantly and bluntly told the player what to do next. This forced break for help not only makes the pace of the game choppy, it destroys most of the challenge of having to figure the game out by itself.  As Sid Meier says, “A game is a series of interesting choices.”  If the player is told what to do, the challenge and joy of interacting with the world and learning its unique physics and laws become null.  The sense of adventure, exploration, and discovery are instantly killed.  The game kills the reason for playing the game.  The game also fails on adding more interesting developments throughout the game.  The tools are often tedious to use and can’t be easily used to influence the battles, which leaves the battles almost unchanging and dull.  The player’s avatar does not go through any significant changes to stimulate new and exciting gameplay.  Many of the items and their upgrades are cheap compared to the available currency, causing the game’s economy to be boring and allowing the character to upgrade fully early in the game, which leaves the player with less interest later in the game.  Even the unlockables sidequest common in Zelda games lacked good gameplay: Ocarina of Time had the golden skulltullas to collect, Twilight Princess had the Poe’s spirits, and Link’s Awakening had the secret seashells.  In those three games, the player had to struggle throughout the entirety of the game and look in unconventional places through the entire world for the unlockables sidequest.  This style of the sidequest promoted good gameplay by encouraging the players to think out of the box and look for them in unconventional spots.  The player would have to search for the entire length of the game, adding an extra layer of gameplay goodness for the entirety of the game.  It is also extremely difficult to achieve finishing those three sidequests because of the vast number and diversity of the items.  In addition, as the player found more of the items, a better reward would be unlocked.  Each reward was extremely valuable and very helpful to the player, promoting the player to want to try to get more of the items and thus promoting good gameplay.  Skyward Sword on the other hand fails in its unlockables quest.  The items are not scattered throughout the world but localized in a small portion of the map.  The only thing preventing the player from getting them all at once is the game only lets them appear once parts of the story are completed.  The collection of the items becomes more of a chore because the player must return to the area and look around for more.  Another way the unlockables quest became a chore is the player is forced to do chores to receive the item.  Yes, the hero must clean up a house, move pumpkins, and cheer some people up.  Instead of exploring the world, the player is forced through painful and often boring little tasks irrelevant to the game as a whole.  A few of the items are collected in the exploration way, but these few are insignificant in comparison.  The unlockables are also just as unimpressive and worthless, especially the final one.  Most of the rewards are simply more money, which is unnecessary because the world is already overflowing with it.  The final unlockable was a greatly increased wallet size, but by that time in the game the player has already bought everything he needs and the wallet can do nothing more than hold all of that extra money that is unneeded.  In Ocarina of Time, the few players who strive to get all the skulltullas are rewarded with an infinite source of money, something the player can at least put to use in the many minigames.  The difference in the excellence of the gameplay is often determined by things people might consider to be small details.  It is the details that determine the gameplay.  The gameplay ensures the aesthetics can be properly observed, experienced, and known.

The gameplay allows for the aesthetic to be properly known and the aesthetic allows for the concept to be known.  The video game is a link to the conscious.  It is a medium of ideas, just like reading a book.  It links the minds of the players to the developers, just like reading a book links the mind of the reader to the mind of the writer.  Indie games are different from the typical game made by one of the larger companies, though.  Indie games are made by one person or a handful of people.  Non-indie, typical, games can be made by up to a few thousand people.  Whereas the player of the typical game can only know the general worldview of the mass of developers, the indie gamer has a much more personal encounter.  The indie gamer is more likely to be able to see the art of the game because there is a more direct link between the artist and the gamer.  The video games aren’t worthless, as postulated by many parents who believe their child is wasting his life over video games.  Because the games are symbols of ideas, the games are real.  A game developer is just as much an artist as a painter or musician is.  He often has to work with other artists including painters (game art) and musicians (soundtrack), just as a playwright has to work with his crew.  The indie game developer will often have to both do the game art and soundtrack by himself or enlist help from others, but nevertheless he retains control over his game and shapes it in the form he desires.  The indie game developer is an artist.

The Misconceptions of Disney & Its Negative Effects on Society

Leave a reply

Kaitlyn Thornton Abbott

Everyone’s seen the classics: Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, Peter Pan, The Little Mermaid, and so on and so forth.  I myself have grown up watching these beloved tales — and still do, for that matter.  But the question that needs to be asked is: what subconscious messages are we actually sending our children?  In today’s society, we are so concerned with what our children hear at school, what they read on the Internet, and what they put into their mouths; shouldn’t we be just as concerned with what they are watching, too, even if it just seems to be harmless cartoons?

Let’s address some of the most loved classics — the princesses: Cinderella, Beauty, The Little Mermaid, Snow White, and Jasmine.  Are these princesses really the heroines they appear to be?  Most would say yes — however, as we delve into these plotlines, you will soon see they are not as “princessy” as they appear to be.

Cinderella — the most acclaimed Disney princess, the one everyone wants to be — has some interesting messages she sends along in her story; more than happiness does come to those who wait for it.  She, most particularly of all the princesses, embodies the notion of “love at first sight.”  She meets Prince Charming at a ball, and suddenly, they both are madly in love with each other after dancing one minute dance together and her running off into the moonlight before he sees her for what she truly is — a servant.  This teaches young girls a variety of things: one, never show your man what you’re truly like until you’ve got him hooked; and two, you’re only pretty when you’re all dressed up.  She teaches them finding love is easy — which we all know is very far from the truth.  A key theme noticed in this movie is deception.  Yep, that’s right.  I’m sure you’re reading this with a bit of apprehension — and it’s understandable.  Who wants to think their childhood hero emulated lying to one’s parents and getting away with it as a good thing?  Well, I’m sorry to crush your dreams, but that’s exactly what she does.  Cinderella lies to her stepmother, sneaks out of the house, and then lies to the Prince about who she is; and yet, she still gets her happy ending.  Aren’t we proud of what our daughters are learning?

Beauty and the Beast — ah, a tale as old as time, right?  WRONG.  Sorry, but no.  On the surface we see Belle looking past the Beast’s hairy, monster-like exterior, at his heart and who he is as a person, or, er, Beast.  And while not judging a book by its cover is a fantastic lesson for children, let’s examine the underlying messages.  Belle is strong-willed and defiant when it comes to the expectations of French society, and that is fantastic — don’t conform!  But, on the other hand, what actually happens in the film?  She gets the Beast to change his ways.  Now, in reality, the Beast had bipolar disorder, was a manic depressive, with anger management issues.  He abused Belle, verbally, emotionally, and even physically at times.  He keeps her locked up and refuses to feed her at times, and yet, her sweet, compliant demeanor changes him and turns him into a gentle, handsome, loving man.  SIKE.  Let’s be real — no woman can change a man from abusive to gentle.  That is not something we need to be teaching young girls; and don’t even get me started on the bestiality aspect.

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was the first animated movie released by Disney.  As the first heroine on the scene, Snow White sends the strongest message about gender roles.  After being thrown out of her kingdom, she stumbles upon a dirty cottage with seven little men living in it.  Without being asked, the young woman cleans the whole house from top to bottom and begins to take on the motherly role the dwarfs expect of her by cooking meals and continuing to clean up after the men.  In 1937, when the movie was released, this domestic image of women was commonplace and accepted.  But now, more than 80 years later, little girls continue to watch Snow White and assume her submissive role with a smile.

She’s one of the few princesses who is actually born an actual princess, but unlike the other princesses on this list, Princess Jasmine is a supporting character, not the lead.  The movie, as you may be able to guess by the title, is about Aladdin, not her.  Although her existence as a woman who wants to live her life her way rather than according to the laws of men or her palace is an important turning point in the history of the Disney Princess, she is still very much a pawn in the film.  But this really isn’t the worst of it….

Her whole story arc in the film is about whether or not she’ll be married by her next birthday, so the next ruler of Agrabah may be chosen.  She doesn’t get to be the ruler of the kingdom when she becomes queen, even though she is the sole heir.  The Sultan, her father, spends the bulk of the film trying to find a suitable suitor for her.  Additionally, this plot point is integral to the villain Jafar’s master plan as he desires her hand in marriage, not because he loves or cares about her, but for the title and power that would give him if they got married.  But it is important to note she is the only female character in the entire movie.  While Disney improved the message they sent to their viewers, Jasmine was still portrayed as a lonely girl whose only option was to marry in order to not be alone anymore.  She had no friends to help her, besides her pet tiger.

Now that we’ve addressed a few of the prominent Disney Princesses, let’s talk about the messages of some the movies directed to a gender-neutral audience.  For example, when The Lion King, a fan favorite and Disney’s hugely successful animated movie first roared onto the big screen, some astute scribblers on the arts, entertainment, politics and social psychology weighed in with thought-provoking reflections on the underlying messages of the ostensibly simple story.  Some found strong elements of sexism in it.  Some discerned homophobia.  Others found racial stereotypes.  Then there were those who found anarchistic monarchism and the psychology of victimization.  Most of the children for whom the movie was made, however, simply enjoyed its visual beauty, its delightful music, its whimsy and its good, old-fashioned, bloodless combat, where the good guys win in the end.  Of course, there really is more to The Lion King than the surface story.  It’s just that the previous dissectors couldn’t see it anymore than the people who put it together.  Now that the movie has leaped onto the small screen, it’s a good time to set the record straight and explain the real hidden meaning of The Lion King: it’s a political fable of contemporary America.  The first crucial scene in the movie is Scar’s murder of King Mufasa by tossing him off a hill into the path of thousands of stampeding wildebeests.  What is not explained at that point is what started the wildebeests on their stomp: something had panicked them.

Obviously the hyenas did it by yapping such scary warnings as “Health-care reform gonna take away your mama’s choice!  Welfare mothers gonna eat your baby’s peanut butter!  Affirmative action gonna lay off your daddy!  Sex education gonna rape your daughter’s mind!”  Well, once the wildebeests started running, nothing was going to stand in their way.  They trampled Mufasa just like the alarmed voters of this country ran amok and wiped out the dominance of the Democratic Party in Congress last November.

Rather than monarchy, Mufasa obviously represents the New Deal ideal of the free, tolerant, egalitarian, compassionate society that had been evolving in this country since the midpoint of the century.  Scar is a throwback to the days when social conscience was not very much in fashion, and the interests of the rich and the greedy were all that mattered.

The usurper’s natural allies are the hyenas.  It wouldn’t take much stretching of the imagination to identify Scar and his pals with some of the politicians whose stars have ascended of late.  Suffice it to say there are some rapacious lions and scavenging hyenas on the loose in Washington.  And they are easy to spot.

Scar conning Simba into believing he is responsible for his father’s death is analogous to current efforts to convince people who are victims of systemic discrimination, cultural and educational deprivation, and opportunity curtailment that their plight is their own fault.

Simba is fatherless and homeless, but he blames himself, accepts his fate, and consigns himself to a life of purposeless hedonism in the company of a Falstaffian warthog and a foppish meerkat.  Meanwhile Scar and the hyenas turn the Pride Lands into a fascist dictatorship run strictly for the benefit of the strong and the greedy.  Before long the Pride Lands become a wasteland, and the government is a prisoner of the scavengers it used to gain power.  Faith, however, does not die.  It is personified by the mystical old baboon, Rafiki.  It is he who sniffs the wind, realizes that Simba (the hope of the future) is still alive, seeks out the rightful ruler and persuades him to return and restore the kind of rule where the “Circle of Life” is maintained for the benefit of all.

There is, of course, a love story, but it needs no exegesis.  Real love never does.  On a very superficial level, one could sum up the whole movie as Simba’s and Nala’s love story with some political intrigue, humor, and action padded into it.  That’s probably what the people who wrote and produced the political fable intended.  But what do they know?

As a child, I loved the Disney film The Little Mermaid.  For me, the attraction to the film was based on my love of the competitive sport of swimming and Ariel’s abilities as a mermaid.  When I used to obsessively watch The Little Mermaid, I was not aware of the subliminal gender messages the film directs toward young girls and boys.  Personally, I believe most (if not all) girls watch the film to feel the traditional Disney love that accompanies their fairy tales and the Disney Princess films.

After watching the movie again, I was hyperaware of the cultural messages it reinforces in relation to the hegemonic description of what it means to be female.  To some extent, Ariel illustrates individualism and a challenge to patriarchal values by rejecting her role as a princess on her birthday and exploring the unknowns of a shipwreck.  Eventually, Ariel is still dominated by patriarchy and is subservient to her powerful father.  It is not until she witnesses the leadership and kindness of Eric that she decides to sacrifice her aspirations to be with him.

I found issue in the film with the portrayal of Ursula as an angry sinister spinster.  It seems that in Disney films when women are unmarried, have no children, and have powerful tendencies they are portrayed as evil and angry spinsters.  Instead of having a powerful moral female role model, powerful female characters are cast as immoral and wicked and looking to destroy the lives of young girls like Ariel.  It is as if she is competing with Ariel and must use her power to prevent success in the life of a young girl instead of helping her to be successful.  This theme is relevant in many of the Disney Princess films and could be a reflection of patriarchal values: marriage is the ultimate goal of a woman and if you do not follow this you become an unhappy evil woman who has no reason to lead a kind lifestyle.

The character Ariel also presents an interesting reflection of patriarchy.  She is first portrayed as a young active girl who shows interest in knowledge and adventure (generally male characteristics) but the sight of a man causes her to forget about all previous interests to find a way to be with him.  I found it interesting she has no mother or mention of a female role model (even though she has six older sisters).

Because she has no guidance, she gives into the guise of Ursula and makes a major sacrifice.  She loses her voice (literally and figuratively) and submits to dominant society by becoming an object.  She relies solely on her body to prove to Eric that she is worthy of his love.  The issue with this idea is pretty blatant when you think about it from a gendered perspective.

Ariel loses all control and power.  The loss of her voice signals the loss of power and her subordination to men.  She must rely solely on the sexualization of her body, at the age of 16, to seduce Eric into kissing her within the three days they have known each other.  Until then, she is powerless and if her seduction fails then she becomes a pawn to the powerful sinister Ursula.

By supporting the patriarchal perspective on what it is to be an ideal woman, Disney’s The Little Mermaid teaches young girls that a man does not want a vocal, powerful, intelligent woman.  In order to get married and be happy (because that is all that matters in life), a woman must sacrifice her voice, all of her dreams, and she has to rely solely on her oversexualized youthful body.

Although this is what the film portrays, I do not think young girls are aware of The Little Mermaid’s meaning.  Disney films are so successful because of their cutesy characters and fairy tale endings.  When children are young, they are not looking for real life endings to love stories — they want happily ever after.  My issues with these films have to do with Disney’s cross marketing strategies and how these young children are parented.

This article incorporates ideas and sentences from Molly Mahan’s article “7 Disney Princesses That Make the Worst Role Models” from http://www.ranker.com.

A Contrast Between Frankenstein’s Creation and God’s Creation

Leave a reply

Elsa Lang Lively

Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein brings to attention several thought-provoking concepts such as the nature of mankind, humans as created beings, and humans’ desire for spouses.  While Shelley provides one viewpoint of how these concepts can influence humans’ decisions, the Bible also provides a different application of these concepts according to God’s purpose for creation.

Frankenstein’s monster was created for the sole purpose of scientific advancement.  Victor Frankenstein spent years studying the origins of life and ways in which it could be replicated using science.  During his years at university in Geneva, he poured over books and research, soaking up the knowledge that his professors passed on to him about modern science.  His ability to bring another being into existence was a result of study and toils over the course of several years.  Since his goal of creating another living being had captivated him entirely, Frankenstein’s communication with his family back home suffered tremendously.  He was unable to both devote time to caring for his already living family and his scientific achievement that was not yet alive.

Frankenstein did want to prove his childhood curiosities about the nature of life to be true through the fulfillment of his experiment to replicate life; however, he might have been also motivated by the desire to contribute to the betterment of mankind through his findings.  If he was able to create life from the remains of living people, he could have applied his knowledge to extending life for those who had ailing health.

In contrast, the Creator of the Universe was already fully aware of his power as Creator.  He did not need to develop His knowledge base in order to bring life as we know it into being because He himself created the ability to possess knowledge.  God did not create the universe and mankind in order to prove anything to Himself.  Instead, He created the world and mankind in order to be glorified by His creation and to demonstrate His love.  He knew exactly what He was doing when He created the universe.  His creation was by no means an experiment.  “God saw all that He had made, and it was very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Victor Frankenstein as a creator was very driven by his scientific pursuits.  It could be said that his ambitions to apply his knowledge completely overtook him and caused him to become a different person who was estranged from his family.  As some people lust after power and wealth, Frankenstein chased after knowledge and the application of science.  Even though his childhood was greatly influenced by the beauty of the Swiss outdoors, he traded in his experiences among the natural, existing world for experimentation indoors that left him feeling troubled and drained of energy.

Victor always had goals of some sort throughout the entire story.  As a young student, he applied himself through scientific experimentation.  After his monster began to murder those who he loved back home, his attentions turned towards pacifying the monster by creating a spouse for him.  Once he abandoned those plans, however, he devoted himself to protecting his love Elizabeth and awaiting his own death.  Once Elizabeth was killed by the monster, Frankenstein spent the rest of his life committed to avenging the deaths of William, Justine, Clerval, and ultimately, Elizabeth.  Throughout the entire story, he was never a passive character, but instead was very driven by his goals.

Frankenstein’s monster had the same nature as that of an ordinary human being, as far as emotions and rationale are concerned.  He learned very quickly from his surroundings, becoming very observant of language and human behavior in only several years.  He did not resemble any human physically, and was therefore rejected and abhorred by society.  When the monster first came into existence, he first experienced rejection by his own creator, who wanted nothing to do with him after his experiment proved successful.  Faced with rejection and hate from everyone that the monster came in contact with, he turned against mankind as a whole.  This caused his once innocent nature to be spoiled with the infectious idea of revenge, and his hate resulted in the deaths of Frankenstein’s loved ones.  The monster was very much a product of his environment, basing his actions and thought process on what society subjected him to.

God as Creator is perfect in nature and therefore, never the source of blame for sin on earth.  Because God is caring and the only source of unconditional love, He never leaves His children in time of trouble.  He even sent Jesus to die for all of humanity because He wanted to be able to spend an eternity with those who choose to live for Him.  He designs all of His creations with the utmost care, and not one of His creations is a mistake or unworthy of love in God’s sight.  Psalm 139:13-16 says, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.  I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.  My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place.  When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body.  All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

Humans, as creations of God, were designed to live in paradise and enjoy God’s presence.  As a result of sin entering into the world, every human is born with a sin nature that seeks to please self rather than God.  Because of the magnitude of man’s sin, humans are not righteous enough to enter the kingdom of God based on merit alone.  This is why humans as creations of God still depend upon His grace and mercy in order to be able to have eternal life with Him in Heaven and live life on earth with the goal of serving the Creator.

When Victor Frankenstein finally succeeded in bringing the monster to life, he was terrified and haunted by the capabilities that the monster possessed and by his gruesome appearance.  Therefore, he fled from his creation, leaving the monster to learn to adapt to life on his own and rejecting that which he had brought into the world.  Even though the monster pursued Frankenstein and attempted to reason with him and have a connection with his maker, Frankenstein still continued to shun his creation out of fear and disgust.  Ultimately, Frankenstein sought to kill the monster after he murdered Elizabeth and stole away his very last source of joy in the world.  He vowed not to rest until he had taken vengeance upon the monster.

The monster began his life wanting to have a relationship with his master in some shape or form.  When he was spurned by Frankenstein, however, he sought to experience a human relationship by observing a French family living in the mountains.  Once they reacted violently against him, the monster began to hate his creator for creating him in such a way that he was forced to be rejected by society for the rest of his life.  This is why he turned upon Frankenstein and began to murder those who were closest to him, including his family, friends, and wife.  When the monster could not have a relationship with his creator or any other living being, he vowed to inflict the same kind of pain and loss upon his creator himself.

When God created mankind, His goal was to be able to live in close intimacy with His creation without the separation caused by sin and disobedience.  He wanted His creation to be able to fully experience His love and for them to worship Him.  After the fall of man, God still did not abandon His creation, although they fully deserved to be damned because of their disobedience and failing to follow God’s plan for their lives.  Instead, He revealed Himself through other humans, presenting His commands and providing a way for humans to follow Him.  Above all, Jesus took upon Himself the sins of the world, allowing those who choose to believe in God to experience salvation.  Although mankind turned away from God, He never turned His back on His creation.

Humans broke trust between God and man in the Garden of Eden, which was the start of years of man-made barriers between the Creator and His creation.  Humans as a whole do not always strive to please God and serve Him through their actions.  Some humans shun God completely, despite all that He has done to provide love and salvation for them.  Others decide to follow God and obey His commands.  Yet even those who believe in God and seek a relationship with Him cannot have a perfect, righteous relationship with Him here on earth.  Due to the sin nature of humans, perfection and complete understanding with God can only be achieved in Heaven.  This means that humans must learn to obey God to the best of their abilities while on earth, but wait until eternal life in Heaven to have the perfect relationship with Him that they desire.

Both Frankenstein and his monster feel the need to have a spouse throughout the course of the story.  Frankenstein’s need for a spouse is largely a result of his upbringing.  He grew up with his “cousin” Elizabeth and was given the idea from his parents early on in life that he should marry her in order to unite the family and bring happiness to the parents.  Many of Frankenstein’s fondest memories included times spent with Elizabeth.  When things started to go awry with the monster, Frankenstein longed even more than before to be married to Elizabeth despite the current circumstances.  Near the end, Frankenstein realized that since everything in his life has gone completely wrong, he wanted to be able to experience joy with Elizabeth and bring her comfort before the monster took his life.

The monster sought a spouse because he was rejected by all other forms of humanity.  Like other humans, the monster craved relationships with other humans.  When these relationships and human contact were denied to him, he demanded to be given a spouse who matched him in physical grotesqueness.  He was not as concerned with his physical attraction to a spouse as he just wanted someone to fill a void in his life.  Unlike Frankenstein, however, he was not as fortunate to find a spouse and be married.  Instead, he was forced to live out the rest of his days in solitude.

When God created mankind, he recognized the need for man to have a helper or mate in his life.  “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone.  I will make a helper suitable for him’” (Genesis 2:18).  God did not create humans to live lonely lives but instead wired them to pursue relationships and have human contact.  Not only this, but He also put the desire for finding a spouse within the hearts of both men and women.  Earthly marriage is a representation of the unity between Christ and His church.

Shelley’s account of Frankenstein and his monster demonstrate the need for humans to fulfill their role as creations.  God is the only true Creator who is capable of bringing new life into the world.  Humans are called to obey and serve Him as Lord, abiding in His steadfast love for His creation, as He is the Author of Life.

Music Education

Leave a reply

Nicole Moore Sanborn

Imagine a world without music … awkward silences in the elevator, no radio in the car, no “pump-up” workout music or concerts, a lack of movie scores, and silent cartoons would be a few noticeable changes.  Imagine Tom and Jerry without music.  Without music, the education system would change.  Music education, worship electives in Christian schools, and music classes would cease to exist.  Musicals would not be performed.  The absence of music changes one’s perception of the world.  The world would be less enjoyable, and everything would change.  Music is direly important to our culture; music education cannot exist without music.  Music is a central aspect of being human.  Music education is very important, as it explores a central aspect of culture and humanity; music education improves human thought processes.  Should we not make an effort to understand something so central to our culture?

The following definitions are paraphrased or quoted from Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language.  Music education is the process of training and developing the knowledge, mind, and character of a person in the art and science of music.  By music, I mean the combination of vocal or instrumental sounds or tones that form structurally complete and emotionally expressive compositions.  The scope of music education is through public and private schooling, as well as using music in the home or taking private lessons.  By thought processes, I mean “the power of reasoning, or of conceiving ideas; intellect.”

The history of music education varies by country.  For the purpose of narrowing my scope, only the history of music education in the United States will be discussed.  Music education in the United States began in the Colonial Era (1740s-1780s), especially in New England.  At the time, music education was acquired through singing psalmodies orally, as songs were passed from generation to generation.  The other primary method of music education was called “lining out.”  In this method, a “cantor” speaks or sings a line, and the congregation repeats.  This method was not favored due to its redundant nature and assumed waste of time.  “Lining out” was assumed a waste of time due to its redundancy and ineffectiveness.  The congregation gained familiarity with musical compositions, but not necessarily understanding.  The first music teachers taught singing by individual note, one at a time, and traveled from town to town to teach.  They taught in homes, meeting houses, and saloons.  The skill of reading music was rare.  Those who could read music attended Harvard for further study.  Reformers advocated singing songs note by note, and singing schools were established to teach people how to read music (Keene 10-12).

The development of music education was partially facilitated by John Tufts, who compiled a book of psalm tunes, the first book of music instruction in America.  Notes appeared on the staff with punctuation symbols to indicate length (a period was a half note, colon a whole note, and lack of punctuation represented a quarter note).  His book was used until 1881 and eased the transition from learning each note individually to understanding and seeing the rhythmic pattern of psalms in their entirety.  Thomas Walter wrote Grounds and Rules of Music Explained.  In this work, Walter encouraged singing by note and explained music would be preserved more accurately (as to how the composer intended) through this method.  He also emphasized listening to music as an aid to music education (13-15).  In the 1800s, the previously-established singing schools were further developed.  Singing schools increased in number and popularity, taught a stronger curriculum due to published music education works, and had a particular purpose.  The aim of this development was to supply the church choir with trained musicians.  In addition to voice production and vowel formation, the students learned about clefs, syllables, keys, and note values.  Singing schools became the primary means of music education (19).

From the 1720s-mid 1800s, the tune book was the only readily available text for music education; these were meant for intellectual consideration rather than practice (33).  In performance practices, tempo markings and metronomes were used.  In rhythm, different meters were explored.  Lessons were taught about pitch and key notes, but few books were written on the subject at the time (36-39).

Due to improvement (curricula was further developed and music teachers were more available) in school systems and instruments being manufactured in America, the desire for singing schools decreased.  Serious music students went to study in Europe.  Despite improvement of curricula in America, music education curricula in Europe was further developed (more works had been published and music education was more widespread than in America); the serious music students left America to study under European composers.  European teachers moved to America.  Since America was still a young country, employment opportunities for music teachers were more widespread, enticing European teachers to move.  Music education was moving forward (55-56).

Music education varied by region.  The north consisted of towns who favored education, while the south consisted of counties who viewed education as a luxury (59).  In Virginia, people supported the arts, and musicians made money through playing and singing.  By the late 1780s, patronage stopped in Virginia and musicians found other employment (63-65).  In South Carolina, music education was considered a requirement.  The church had little influence and secular music was popular.  Music instruction was aimed at the sons and daughters of the wealthy.  South Carolina was like a European music capital at this time (65).  By 1780, Philadelphia was one of the top music cities in the country, competing with South Carolina.  Teaching instruments to young ladies was prevalent (69).

In the 18th and 19th centuries, an education reform occurred in America, focusing on reason and nature.  This was in the period of the Enlightenment (78).  William C. Woodbridge changed the teaching system in America, making vocal music a regular part of the school curriculum (89).  Elam Ives set up musical seminars and taught key music concepts.  He was the first to use Pestalozzian concepts in music education (90-91).  Pestalozzianism stressed instruction should proceed from familiar to new, incorporating performance of concrete arts and the experience of emotional responses, paced to follow the gradual unfolding of a child’s development (81-82).  Ives taught Pestalozzianism in his seminars and was a key figure in developing music education in America.

In the 19th century, Lowell Mason, a music teacher who set up singing schools and harmonized psalms and hymns, promoted music education throughout the country.  Earlier in his life, Mason attended singing schools and played multiple instruments.  He believed students must be led to the information by the teacher and did not promote teacher dictation (107).  Mason established singing schools primarily in Boston.  Later, the public school music program was expanded.  However, an enriched curriculum was not developed until the tax-supported school system was enforced.  By 1838, music was an accepted subject in Boston public schools, but it could not exceed two hours per week (114).

Music was added to the curriculum of private academies and select schools, where teachers were paid directly through the students.  Music courses were popular in these schools.  Each school competed with the depth and breadth of music courses offered.  Some schools began to offer so many music courses they resembled conservatories (149-52).  A conservatory is a school specifically designed to focus on music and the arts, with a small focus on subjects such as math, science, and history (outside of music and art history).

As public schools improved and their curriculum was expanded, the pressure for art and music education increased.  While the public schools were being improved, the need for music education was realized on a larger scale than it had been before.

In the midst of the aforementioned history, published books regarding music education emerged.  In 1861, Joseph Bird was the first to attempt and complete the Vocal Music Reader, essentially a song book where the singer reads music.  In 1864, Lowell Mason wrote the first actual music series with Song Garden.  The music series was to be used for more universal music education.  In 1870-1875, Luther Whiting Mason wrote a national music course used in the United States and Germany for over 50 years (189).  In 1883, John Tufts and Hosea Edson Holt wrote Normal Music Course, an attempt at an even more universal curriculum (196).

In the 1870s, some schools began specialized programs for the education of music teachers.  Schools for music teachers evolved from conventions lasting a few weeks.  At this time, there was a growing concern for musicianship and skills necessary to teach vocal music successfully in schools (206-07).  The National Normal Music School was established, using Luther Mason’s National Music Course (212).  Julia Crane wrote a teachers manual in 1887 to influence the training of musical teachers.  She focused on the most beneficial progression of music education for children.  In 1907, the Music Supervisors National Conference met and discussed standard curricula.  Those that did offered detailed courses.  In 1921, the education council of this conference developed a four year plan consisting of ¾ music education and ¼ general studies, specifically designed for music schools.  Course work included piano, voice, theory, ear training, music history, music appreciation, orchestration and methods, and music electives (215-19).

In the 1900s, music performance classes (learning how to play and perform an instrument) began to dominate over music appreciation classes (listening to music and learning its importance).  Instrumental instruction became more widespread in 1900.  In the 19th century, instruction as to how to play instruments was less prevalent (270-72).  The 20th century saw technology advances in music instruction methods and the rise of instrumental music (225).  The conservatory system was developed in the 20th century.  The conservatory system taught music intensively, with the goal to produce excellent performers with broad musical backgrounds.  Conservatories accepted musicians of all aptitudes and declined as public school instruction rose (278-79).

Later in the 20th century, newer approaches to music education came from abroad.  Carl Orff promoted creativity and encouraged memory (343).  Zoltán Kodály’s approach was to learn rhythm and melodic ideas.  He focused on folk music, theory, reading, writing notation, and singing as a basic mode of instruction (347).  The Suzuki method, still popular today, focused on teaching basic principles such as listening and proper playing techniques, as well as motivating and reinforcing the students.  Suzuki taught young children through repetition (350-51).  Now that some history has been given, the relevancy of the issue will be discussed.

Music education is important for all because it is widespread and prevalent in society.  Humans encounter music almost daily whether it is through the radio, in the shopping mall, at work, the television, listening for pleasure, or playing an instrument.  Since music is encountered almost daily, music education is helpful in explaining how something daily encountered works.  Music education is readily available through public schools, private schools, colleges and universities, and private lessons.  Since it is readily available, it has the potential to affect everybody, increasing its importance.  My thesis is relevant because it will help people understand the benefits of music education and why it should be kept in schools.

In order to prove music education improves human thought processes, I will explain first, music education aids the development of language; second, music education aids the development of proper emotional and physiological (bodily) responses; and third, music education improves logic.  I will then refute first, music education hinders learning for those not musically inclined; and second, science and math education are more important and should receive more funding than music education.

My first argument is music education aids the development of language.  The world is understood and described through language.  Though language is not the only way the world is described and understood, it is a primary way.  If one does not have a good basis for understanding language and, as a result, does not understand language, their perception of the world will be different.  Admittedly, everyone’s perception of the world is different before language comes into effect.  However, perception of language alters perception of events and issues.  An example of how language changes one’s perception of the world is reading contracts.  Failure to understand language in contracts can lead to signing something not previously discussed or agreed to.  Understanding how language is used cannot take place until language is acquired, as in understanding phonics and word structure.  Music education aids in the acquisition of phonics and word structure, thereby paving the way for understanding language use (aiding the understanding of everyday conversations and encounters).  A study taken at the Arts Based Elementary School (ABES, a charter school) in North Carolina (the town was not specified) in 2002 divided students in kindergarten through third grade into test and control groups.  At the beginning of the school year, each student was evaluated by three tests.  One was the Broad Reading sections of the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement, which tests letter-word identification, reading fluency, and passage comprehension.  The second was the Predictive Assessment of Reading, which measures how well one understands phonetics (phonemic awareness) as well as fluency and name recall.  Phonetics is “the branch of language study dealing with speech sounds, their production and combination, and their representation by written symbols” (“Phonetics”).  The third test was the Auditory-Visual Integration test, a computerized test measuring spatial-temporal tasks.  Spatial-temporal tasks are temporary, short-term tasks completed in a space or area.  The children were evaluated by the same tests at the end of the term, just before Christmas break.  During the study, the test group participated in 18 half-hour lessons with four musicians over a four-month period.  The control group participated in chess lessons during the same period.  Both phonemic awareness and spatial-temporal abilities improved in all grade levels in the test groups.  Overall, the study indicates children in early elementary grades develop stronger bases of understanding phonetics and develop a better understanding of how to read when nine hours of special music instruction are added to their lives (Fox 114-115).  Though other methods can be used in teaching students how to read, such as tutoring and completing reading assignments, the study proves adding music instruction to a child’s life improves reading ability.  Adding nine hours of special music instruction in one, four-month time period (rather than all year) improved students’ ability to read; providing music instruction each year will continue to improve the ability to read.

Results of a brain scan study indicate the brain processes music and language with overlapping ways of thinking, in overlapping structures/parts of the brain.  This evidence corresponds to the assumption music and speech is intimately connected in early life.  Musical elements pave the way to linguistic capacities (the mental ability to understand language) earlier than phonetic elements (phonics, the basics of learning how to speak and read a language) (Koelsch 151).

Music and speech share characteristics such as sound waves, perception through the ear, and conversion to neural impulses.  Processing music and language takes place in the same general brain regions.  Music and language both rely on the perception and processing of “assembled units” combined with tonal features and associated with unique symbols.  These symbols are letters in the case of language and notes in the case of music.  Therefore, music and language are multisensory (Fox 120).  Since music and language share these characteristics, understanding how to listen to music can aid the understanding of language.  The argument which follows is music education can aid the understanding of language.  Music is concerned with the communication of musical ideas.  Speech deals with words and the expression of thought.  Speech and music are both types of communication.  Speech and music are also similar as they entail a degree of precision, but neither more so than the other (Henson 252).

Musical abilities are important in language perception and understanding.  In tonal languages, such as Chinese, changes in pitch lead to changes in word meaning.  In both tonal and non-tonal languages, prosody (the musical features of language, including melody, timbre, rhythm, and meter) is of vast importance for understanding structure and meaning in speech.  Music education improves musical abilities in this regard.  EEG (electroencephalography) studies (brain scanning) revealed similarities in the processing of tonal phase boundaries in language and music.  The studies also showed musical training can make the processing of pitch contour in spoken non-tonal language easier.  The findings of other studies (ERAN and ELAN) indicate an overlap of brain (or neural) resources engaged for the processing of syntax in music and language (Koelsch 145-147).  The musical features of language are important for the structure and meaning of speech.  For example, the rhythm at which a statement is said or the emphasis put on certain words changes the meaning of a sentence.  Likewise in music, dynamics play an important part in the tone and mood of the piece.  Studying musical features of language (such as rhythm and accented notes) aids understanding how music relates to language.  Not understanding the use of language in a sentence (in regards to meaning and intonation) makes one feel as though he does not understand the world around him.  Intonation is “the manner of applying final pitch to a spoken sentence or phrase; significant levels and variations in pitch sequences within an utterance” (“Intonation”).  Music education aids the understanding of language in meaning and intonation.  Since this is the case, one would not as frequently feel as though he does not understand the world due to music education.

Additionally, music lessons expand children’s vocabulary.  Musicians and teachers provide information about their instruments and musical concepts through new language, thereby improving students’ vocabulary (Fox 123).  Knowing and understanding musical words such as “tuba” and “allegro,” as well as other instrument names and terms indicating how a piece of music should be played are meaningful to a vocabulary.  Terms indicating how a piece should be played are predominately Italian.  For example, “allegro” is Italian.  Italian is Latin-based (as are Spanish and French).  Many English words are based on Latin, Italian, Spanish, and French words.  Understanding Italian words as they refer to music will, with the assistance of other studies, aid the understanding of literature and language.  Music terminology facilitates the development of the ability to understand and observe similarities between languages.  As humans, it is in our best interest to understand language and how to communicate with others more effectively, since language and communication skills are necessary in each facet of life (primarily when talking to others).  Music education aids the understanding of vocabulary and thereby aids more effective communication, making music education useful even in talking to fellow human beings.

Grasping language aids our understanding of the world around us, as the world is described through and people communicate through language.  Understanding music through music education aids the comprehension of language because new language is taught to students, which develops their understanding of the world.  As proven above, reading and understanding music through music education helps one know words better.  Knowing words better helps one communicate more effectively on a daily basis, read contracts more effectively, and understand politics, culture, and events better.  Thus, language acquisition and a more developed (better) understanding of language aid the understanding of the world.  As a whole, music education aids the development of language processes in the brain due to the intimate connection between music and language and the applications understanding language through music has on one’s life.

My second argument is music education aids the development of proper emotional and physiological (bodily) responses to reality.  When proper emotional responses are developed, so is a proper understanding of reality.  Learning what emotion the composer was seeking to evoke and how the composer viewed the piece helps the student learn proper emotional responses to music.  What emotion the composer was seeking to evoke can be discovered by observing the description of how the piece is to be played regarding dynamics, or through listening to the song.  Through music education, students will be taught how to react to certain pieces of music.  The teacher explains to the students what emotion the composer was trying to evoke, and points students to this reaction.  Or, the teacher may tell the students how different people react to the piece, and tell them if it is correct.  The accuracy of a reaction is based on the description of how the piece is to be played and listening to it played properly (according to the composer’s description).  A piece played quickly (allegro) with a melodic tone and disparity in loudness and softness (dynamics) would most likely result in excitement in the listener.  The composer determined how the piece should be played to the above specifications.  In music education, the students are taught how pieces are played (loudness and softness, speed, tone).  Students are also taught why they respond to specific pieces with specific emotions.  For example, the teacher explains the quick-moving nature of a piece excites students because of how the human body naturally reacts.  If a student understands why he reacts to certain pieces of music the way he does, he can carry that over to other facets of life.  For example, if a student knows why a piece made him feel excited, he can use the same process previously used to understand why he feels upset in a different situation, not related to music.  Music education provides the student with tools to figure out his emotions because music education uses and teaches the aforementioned tools of observing the source and emotional reaction.  He will analyze said emotion and use the same process in various stages of life.

Music is a means of getting out of a bad mood and reducing tension and anxiety.  The ability to manage moods is extremely important for psychological functioning.  This is because mood influences memory, decision-making, and evaluative judgments (Clarke 89-90).  Better memory, decision-making, and evaluative judgments aid the development of a proper understanding of reality.  Memory influences perception of the world as facts are remembered and applied in daily life.  Decisions and evaluative judgments are made each day regarding little things (what to wear, eat, etc.) and larger issues (where to attend college, how to discipline if in a situation of authority, etc.).  Managing moods (which can be helped through music education), influences decisions and therefore one’s life.  Music can also be used to keep brain cells alive during periods of stress.  Excessive stress destroys brain cells, according to the latest brain research.  Unfortunately, the author I learned this from was not specific and no explanation of the brain research was provided (Leviton 283).

Gilliland and Moore, two researchers studying the immediate and long-term effects of classical and popular music selections, completed an extensive study on how music influences mood and emotion.  One aspect of the study involved taking a picture of a participant before and after listening to a piece of music, in order to illustrate and make a conclusion on how music influences reactions, mood, and emotions.  They concluded from those photographs the appreciation of good music tends to result in improved morale (221).  Good morale is important for a person’s well-being.  Morale is “moral or mental condition with respect to courage, discipline, confidence, enthusiasm, willingness to endure hardship, etc. within a group, in relation to a group, or within an individual” (“Morale”).  A positive mental outlook on hardship, courage, discipline, etc. improves well-being.  Embodying discipline and courage and enduring hardship make one’s life better as a whole.  This is because discipline produces strong work ethic, courage defeats fear, and enduring hardship improves mental and emotional strength.  Music education teaches the appreciation of good music, thereby improving morale and overall lifestyle.

Emotions not only guide our actions, but they also enable expression of how we feel to others and allow for the interpretation of other people (meaning how one reacts to something he is told or how someone else’s emotions are perceived).  Emotional responses for everyday events are part of what make us human (Clarke 82).  If one can understand the world around him better and understand proper emotional responses, interactions with others will also be improved.  Schoen and Gatewood, researchers studying the mood effects of music, performed two studies.  For the purpose of this essay, only the first study will be discussed.  The collection of data indicated musical pieces and compositions produce a change in the emotional state of the listener.  Each composition showed a noticeable uniformity in how it changed listeners’ emotions and responses.  The first study tested 17 men and women, some of them students of the music and drama departments of the Carnegie Institute of Technology, and others of faculty members from the Division of Co-operative Research.  Each participant filled out a mood change chart indicating where they were located, time of day, weather, what music selection they desired to hear, their mood preceding the test, any serious mood changes the music brought about, the selection causing the mood change, and how the mood changed.  Rather than presenting the participants with a selection of moods to choose from, the sheet required participants to record their mood, with the aim of observing accurate mood changes (this, of course, assumes the honesty of the participant).  Preceding the study, each participant was interviewed to determine their musicality and attitude toward music.  The 15 selections used were all instrumental.  The pieces were organized into two overall classes, joyful and serious.  After listening to the selections in a predetermined order, each participant completed a questionnaire indicating the participant’s mood before and after listening to the selection, rating the music (how they liked it, if it was good), and the familiarity of the selection.  A summary of the data was collected, and Schoen concluded the large variety of selections used not only produced a change of mood in practically all listeners, but also the moods induced by each selection or class of selections were strikingly similar in type.  Under the classification of joyful pieces, the moods recorded beforehand were disparate, but afterward, the majority felt joyful.  For example, after listening to “William Tell Overture,” 10 of the 13 listeners felt joyful.  After “Light Cavalry Overture,” 12 of 13 listeners were joyful; after “Shepherd’s Dance,” eight of nine felt joyful.  “Anitra’s Dance” caused seven of eight listeners to feel joyful.  “Pastel-Minuet” caused 13 of 17 to feel joyful, and, finally, “Liebesfreud” caused eight of 12 to feel joy.  Only four of eight listeners of “Aida March” were joyful, however the tabulation of the other data significantly compensates for the 50% feeling joyful after “Aida March” (Gatewood 131-142).  Their study demonstrates not only music has a strong impact on emotion, but also each musical piece tends to have the same impact on a significant percentage of listeners.  In music education, students are taught how to react emotionally to pieces.  Since reactions are uniform to a striking degree for each composition, students can be taught how to emote about a piece.  Emoting about music is the first step.  Emoting properly about music can lead to emoting properly about family situations, because the tools will be developed.  In turn, as learning to emote properly develops, students will learn how to develop proper emotional responses to other, larger issues in the world, such as water crises, debt, politics, wars, etc.  The skill starts small but ends in emoting properly about world issues.  Music education will aid the initial development of the ability to emote properly.

Not only do emotions respond to music, but also the body responds to music (physiological responses).  The brain signals the body to react certain ways to certain pieces of music.  For example, a person might want to begin dancing after listening to a lively piece of music, or sit down and relax after listening to soothing music.  “It has been known for many years that perceptual and emotional musical experiences lead to changes in blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration … and other autonomic (automatic, functions the brain controls sub-consciously) functions” (Harrer 202).  Music, then, not only changes our emotions, but also our body signals.  Studying music helps develop proper emotional responses and proper emotional responses aid a better understanding of reality.  This ultimately helps decision-making for the rest of one’s life.  Improving understanding of reality improves thought processes since the brain also processes reality as it understands reality (as well as when proper emotional responses are developed, as stated previously).  Therefore, since music education improves human thought processes in this regard, it would be foolish to deny any student music education.  Imagine a loved one making poor decisions because he was never taught how to develop proper emotional responses.  While other means to teach the development of proper emotional responses exist (such as parents explaining proper reactions in the home), music education enhances these skills.  Appreciating good music (and learning how to do so through music education) helps students develop more accurate emotional responses than without such music education.

My third argument is music education improves logic.  Music is best taught in an orderly sequence.  Granted, teaching in an orderly sequence works for any subject; like Mathematics, Science, or English, however, it should be experienced through music education due to the other connections music (and music education) has to order and logical thought processes.  New information is best and most easily learned when it builds on what has previously been presented (Fox 136).  Though no “right order” exists for music education universally, the very nature of music (rhythms, theory, scales, etc.) is cumulative, and therefore should be taught as such.  When music is taught in an orderly sequence, students will learn how to see the world in an orderly fashion, as they mimic the order demonstrated in the classroom.  Music is everywhere; thus, seeing music in an orderly fashion will cause students to see this one reoccurring aspect of life and culture in an orderly manner.  Seeing music, an important aspect of culture, in an orderly fashion will later aid a student’s ability to understand other aspects of culture and the world in an orderly fashion.  Since other subjects in school are taught in an orderly fashion, students will see those topics in sequence and all of the subjects will come together in an orderly sequence in their brain through constant exposure to the subjects in an orderly fashion.  Though it may seem this magically happens, the argument is tangible.  Music has an inherent order.  Musical works contain specific rhythms specified in the very beginning.  Though the rhythm may change, a new rhythm is always indicated in the piece.  Scales have a proper order.  Scales (of one octave) consist of eight notes played in ascending order and in descending order.  In music education, students are taught the basic components of musical rhythm and scales, the orderliness of music.  The teacher should explain how to identify order in other areas of life.  The teacher may say something like “Now we see the rhythmic order of the piece, as you identified it.”  You can use this same process, of observing, contemplating, and finding relationships in other areas of life.  For example, analyze the logical sequence of events in this class.”  The student will do so, thereby practicing the ability to recognize order and sequence.  This will aid the development of logical and rational thought processes.

Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language defines logic as a “science which describes relationships among propositions in terms of implication, contradiction, contrariety, conversion, etc.; necessary connection or outcome, as through the working of cause and effect” and order as “the sequence or arrangement of things or events.”  Logic does not equal order, but order is a component of logic.  In logic, the sequence of things and events are observed through cause and effect.  The cause leads to the effect through some sequence of events, thus logic has order.  The description of relationships among propositions requires some order, as the description will have an order to it.  Thus logic and order are correlated.  Since logic and order are correlated, viewing a subject in an orderly sequence will aid the development of logical thought processes.

Music and mathematics are also related.  Mathematics is associated with logic.  Music relates very well to mathematics regarding sound frequencies and waves.  Sound waves can be represented in a curved, repeating graph (a sinusoidal graph), commonly used in mathematics.  Music is very math based, as rhythms have an order and sequence and use a counting method.  The production of sound waves in musical notes can best be explained through mathematics.  Tones can be analyzed through bar graphs, once again, relating music to mathematics.  To analyze tones through a bar graph, write the names of the notes in one octave (a series of eight notes in a certain interval on an instrument) on the horizontal axis (F, G, A, etc.) and how loud or soft the note was (either in precise decibel measurements or in common language-loud or soft) on the vertical axis.  Then create a second graph comparing loudness and softness between notes in a different octave, and compare the two graphs.  While simply analyzing information through a graph does not intimately connect a subject matter to mathematics, music and mathematics have a stronger correlation, as shown through the other examples above.  “Acoustics (the physics of sound) has well-developed and sophisticated methods to describe and observe the physical characteristics of the amplitude (power) and frequency (speed of oscillation) duration, and superimposition of wave forms, but this is very different from describing how they are perceived by human beings” (Clarke 68).  Acoustics is directly related to mathematics and physics, as acoustics has methods to describe and observe wave forms produced in music through mathematics, relating music to mathematics more intimately.  Psychoacoustics is also studied in music education.  Psychoacoustics is the study of relationships between acoustical events (such as frequencies, duration, and intensity of notes and sound waves) and their physiological and psychological counterparts (such as pitches, timbres, rhythms, and loudness in music) (170).  Studying acoustics and psychoacoustics in music education gives students a better understanding of how amplitude, frequency, duration, rhythms, pitches, and wave forms relate to mathematics and logicality.  One “real world” benefit of understanding how music relates to mathematics is the career field.  Physicists use wave amplitude, frequency, and duration in their field when studying light and sound waves.  Engineers developing instruments use mathematics skills to evaluate how sound waves will exit the instrument.  Musicians should understand the relation of music and mathematics to help evaluate how to play a piece louder or softer, as well as increase their general understanding of sound waves and their instrument.

If not interested in the aforementioned career fields, understanding music mechanics better through mathematics, acoustics, and psychoacoustics relates to logical faculties for non-musical aspects of life and thought.  Pattern recognition is beneficial for thought processing outside of music.  Noticing patterns in behavior of children can aid the correction of wrong behavior.  Pattern recognition is beneficial for the student in other classes, such as patterns in style of literature, historical patterns, and scientific patterns.  Pattern recognition is also the focus of the science section of the American College Testing (ACT), a standardized test colleges examine the results of to determine a student’s preparedness for college.  The ACT utilizes pattern recognition in each section; however pattern recognition analysis is the primary aim of the science section.  Understanding patterns based on rhythms is taught in music education.  Patterns are presented throughout logic; understanding patterns aids the understanding of logic.  Music education then, in its explanation of rhythms, increases pattern recognition, thereby increasing the understanding of logic, relating music mechanics to logical faculties for non-musical aspects of life and thought.

As explained in the first main argument (relating music to language acquisition), there is no one center in the brain which houses all the neurological correlates (or thought processes and brain functions) of the varied skills understanding music requires.  As someone listens to music, he becomes more critical of music, partially transferring music perception to the left hemisphere of the brain (Storr 37-38).  The left hemisphere primarily controls logical decision-making and critical thinking faculties.  Music education gives students more experience in exercising logical faculties.  As logical faculties are developed, a student will gradually learn how to make rational decisions outside of musical experiences.

David, an autistic boy, suffered from anxiety and poor visual-motor coordination.  He had been trying to learn how to tie his shoe laces for nine months, unsuccessfully.  His audio-motor coordination was discovered to be very good.  He could drum very well and was musically gifted.  His therapist successfully taught him how to tie his shoe laces through a song.  “A song is a form in time.  David had a special relationship to this element and could comprehend the shoe-tying process when it was organized in time through a song” (Storr 33).  Conventional methods failed to teach him to tie his shoes, but teaching him through music was successful.  His logical faculties were advanced in the music realm.  Teaching him how to tie his shoe laces through music was successful because music aided his logical understanding of how to tie his shoes.  The author does not specify whether music helped David’s non-shoe-tying processes.  However, since this has worked once, it has the potential to work again.  Memorizing facts through music has proved successful as well.  The logicality of rhythms helps the brain process facts and commit them to memory.  For example, Kaitlyn Thornton, Elsa Lang, and I still remember the Presidents of the United States song learned six years ago.  The song lyrics were a list of each president’s names in chronological order.  The logical rhythm of music and the order which music is composed of helps the brain understand and remember facts.

Kenneth Wendrich wrote many essays on music education and society.  Langer, who Wendrich refers to, defines music as a logical expression of sentient life.  This is because of music’s characteristics of rhythm and temporal organization.  In music education, students are acquainted with how tones are organized in time and “study those (musical) works which have, by virtue of their position in the culture, engendered the strongest resonance with man’s sentient life” (Wendrich 107).  Wendrich and Langer agree music education resonates and aids man’s sentient, or conscious, thought life.  Because this is true, music education, by its very nature, improves logical thought processes and thereby improves human thought processes as a whole.  Logical thought processes are an aspect of human thought processes as a whole, improving one aspect of thought makes the entirety better, as the whole is composed of parts.  While logic does not equal sentience/consciousness, much analytical and logical thought occurs in the conscious mind.  While some logic occurs subconsciously, humans also think through situations and make decisions consciously.  For example, if one is trying to decide where the most logical place to buy dinner would be, he will (or should) consciously and logically think through how much money he has, gasoline costs, type of food desired, traffic, and location.  This is a sentient act.  Langer and Wendrich argue music education improves man’s sentient (conscious) thought life, logic and sentience are interrelated, thereby correlating sentient acts of reasoning (such as which restaurant to support) to music education.

Music education improves students’ thought processes because it provides them with valuable reasoning processes and a logical brain that will aid them in decision-making for the rest of their lives.  Music education provides students with a logical brain due to the teaching of music in an orderly fashion, music’s relation to mathematics and patterns, the analysis of music in the left hemisphere of the brain, and because music helps the brain learn facts and complete functions.  Music education aids man’s conscious, rational, and logical thought life.

The first argument I will refute is music education hinders learning for those not musically inclined.  This argument says due to the fact music is not the way every individual understands the world, attempting to understand the world through music would ultimately harm some peoples’ way of understanding and cause confusion.  This argument pertains to the manipulation of Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences.  Manipulators of Gardner’s theory (those who oppose my thesis) argue if an individual is not musically inclined and his musical thinking intelligence is weak or undeveloped, music education would not improve his thought processes.  Howard Gardner of Harvard developed a theory suggesting seven distinct intelligences exist.  His theory attempts to document the extent of the different ways in which students learn, remember, perform, and understand, according to the type of mind each student possesses.  According to Gardner’s theory, everyone is able to know the world through language, logical-mathematical analysis, visual-spatial representation (those who think in terms of physical space and 3-D imaging), musical thinking, physically solving problems and creating items, an understanding of others, and an understanding of ourselves.  However, each individual differs in the strength of each intelligence (Lane).

The aforementioned argument is incorrect for a number of reasons.  First, proponents of the view do not fully understand Gardner’s theory.  Gardner stated everyone is indeed able to know the world through music.  Even if one’s grasp on music is weak and one is not musically inclined, maybe even musically ignorant, he can still understand the world through music.  Although attempting to understand through music may seem challenging at first, as musical ability is strengthened through music education, understanding the world through music will be developed and therefore useful.  Similarly, learning how to read takes time, though it may be challenging at first.  Once grasped, the ability to understand and learn through reading is developed and useful.  One may understand the world better through a different avenue than music; however music education will still improve his thought processes.

Gardner proposed the musically inclined show sensitivity to rhythm and sound, may study better with music in the background, and can be taught by turning lessons into lyrics, speaking rhythmically, and tapping out time.  The musically inclined, therefore, would benefit greatly from music education.  However, the other side of the issue must be addressed here.

Music education aids in the development of logical faculties.  Those who understand best through logical-mathematical analysis benefit from music education because of the logicality of rhythms.  Also, those who understand best through language benefit from music education.  Because the relation of logical-mathematical faculties and language’s relation to music were previously explained in the confirmation, no more will be said here.

Music education also helps those who understand best through visual-spatial representation.  The primary tool visual-spatial representation thinkers use to understand is a model of what is being taught (Lane).  Music education not only uses models (sheet music represented in time and space), but the instruments themselves aid visual-spatial representation thinkers’ understanding.  As the instruments are physical objects (visual-spatial thinkers’ way of understanding), music education aids the development of visual-spatial thinkers’ minds.  Music education also elaborates on the spatial representation of notes on sheet music, thus one’s spatial representation faculties are developed.  Ultimately, if one learns best through spatial representation, they can do so with a better process due to music education.  The use of the body is prevalent in music education because of how one plays a musical instrument.  Thus, proponents of Gardner’s theory who oppose the idea music education improves human thought processes fall short.  Everyone can understand through music to a degree; other intelligences are developed and used in music education.

The second argument I will refute is science and math education are more important and should receive more funding than music education.  Thus, more federal funding (or, in the case of private schools, a greater portion of the budget) should go toward science and math education, and little funding for music education.  Proponents of this view downplay the role and importance of music education in students’ lives.  They say math and science are more prevalent because math is used every day through counting money, math class, science class, computers (as the technology behind computers is math based), and the way the universe is created (angles, geometry, symmetry, etc.).  They argue math and science aid the student more as a whole because it helps him understand subjects so prevalent in the world around him.

While this argument seems valid, it is not totally correct.  Math and science education are very important to a students’ education, true, but the purpose of the argument against it is not to downplay their importance.  Rather, this argument seeks to reveal the importance of music education.  Ample funding and budgeting should be provided for science, mathematics, and music.

Kenneth Wendrich, a writer of essays on the importance of music education, supports the view funding ought to be provided toward music and the fine arts because of their prevalence in society.  Music is played in many public places and the arts reflect culture.  Studying art and music from previous eras reflects on the ideologies of said eras and will aid the student in the understanding of culture before their time.  Due to this, music education should be competing with math and science in budgets and schedules.  Wendrich argues “[t]here must be correlated educational programs, particularly at the secondary school level designed to develop an understanding of art works and the artists who produced them in their contemporary societies. Current curricula in the secondary schools have been something less than effective in developing the desired level of understanding in the arts” (72).  Wendrich is not arguing only for music education but fine art education as a whole.  Fine arts education is “any of the art forms that include drawing, painting, sculpture, and ceramics, or, occasionally, architecture, literature, music, dramatic art, or dancing” (“Fine Art”).  Wendrich argues there must be educational programs to develop an understanding of art and the ones in existence have failed.  Funding should indeed go toward music, with the intention of developing better programs.

A seminar held at Yale in 1963 discussed ways to improve high school music programs.  The programs required improvement due to lack of teachers and materials.  With more funding, programs can hire more teachers and acquire ample materials.  One of the seminar’s recommendations was a music literature course for all high school and middle school students should be designed.  This music literature course would develop musical understanding through listening, analysis, and discussion of a limited number of representative compositions.  The project assumed the development of musicality is the primary aim of music education, musicality has a lot to do with the ability to accurately express a musical idea (specifically through rhythm and pitch), and musicality has a lot to do with the ability to understand a musical statement by ear (Wendrich 74).  The seminar saw music education so important each middle school and high school should offer a music literature course.

Admittedly, the world has changed momentously in the 50 years since the seminar at Yale.  But even in a technology-driven world, music is still worth time away from math and science.  Science and mathematics are not more prevalent in society than music, nor should they be.  Though society is technology-driven, music is still a central aspect of culture.  Music is played in many public places such as elevators, the grocery store, radio, waiting rooms in doctors’ offices, and countless others, as expressed in the introduction.  Music scores are still developed in movies.  Take the recent film Les Misérables, for example.  The actors sang from the beginning to end of the film.  Understanding music’s powerful effect on emotions, as well as understanding music mechanics better, may increase one’s enjoyment of the film (the effort put forth and the beauty of the music).  Though the film was also technology-driven, as the graphics, filming, and lighting were brought about by technology, music still played an important role.  While math and science contribute greatly to the creation and development of technology, music is still worth time off of math and science.

Funding should be provided for music for more reason than its prevalence in society.  First, a disparity of subjects increases the diversity of education.  Rather than only teaching the subjects considered as “core” subjects (Math, Science, English, and History), students should be offered more opportunities and outlets.  Music is a means of getting out of a bad mood and reducing tension and anxiety (Clarke 89-90).  Second, the Bible emphasizes singing and worship.  In the book of Psalms, David sings songs of worship to the Lord.  After crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites praise God through song and worship.  Those are two of many Biblical examples where music is used to worship God.  Since music is a means of worshipping God, funding should be provided for music education, as musical worship will be enhanced when those worshipping are musically educated.  Science and math education are not more important than music education, and more funding should be provided for music education.

Imagine, again, a world without music.  The nature of entertainment would change.  Background music would be absent everywhere.  The education system would change.  Music education and music are central parts of being human.  Do you desire to aid the development of language, proper emotional responses, and the ability to think clearly and logically in your children and other loved ones?  If so, providing them with music education can and will aid your endeavors, ultimately increasing their well-being.  Music education improves human thought processes; denying loved ones of this would be a poor decision.  Due to the benefits of music education, it should be kept in schools.  I challenge you to enroll in a music course, learn how to play an instrument, or buy a basic music theory course from the local music store, and seek and support music education.

Works Cited

Clarke, Eric, Nicola Dibben, and Stephanie Pitts. Music and Mind in Everyday Life. Oxford University Press: Oxford, England, 2010. Print.

Fox, Janet and Peter Perret. A Well-Tempered Mind: Using Music to Help Children Listen and Learn. Dana Press: New York, New York, 2004. Print.

Gatewood, Esther and Max Schoen. “The Mood Effects of Music.” The Effects of Music: A Series of Essays. Ed. Max Schoen. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.: 1927. Routledge: London, England, 2001. 131-151. Print.

Gilliland, A.R. and H.T. Moore. “The Immediate and Long-Time Effects of Classical and Popular Phonograph Selections.” The Effects of Music: A Series of Essays. 211-222.

Guralnik, David B., ed. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language. 2nd ed. 1976. Print. “Fine Art,” “Intonation,” “Morale,” and “Phonetics.”

Harrer, G. and H. Harrer. “Music, Emotion and Autonomic Function.” Music and the Brain: Studies in the Neurology of Music. Eds. MacDonald Critchley and R.A. Henson. Charles C. Thomas: Springfield, Illinois, 1977. 202-216. Print.

Henson, R.A. “The Language of Music.” Music and the Brain: Studies in the Neurology of Music. 233-254.

Keene, James A. A History of Music Education in the United States. University Press of New England: Hanover, New Hampshire, 1982. Print.

Koelsch, Stefan. “Neural Substrates of Processing Syntax and Semantics in Music.” Music that Works: Contributions of Biology, Neurophysiology, Psychology, Sociology, Medicine, and Musicology. Eds. Vera Brandes and Roland Haas. Springer-Verlag/Wien: Vienna, Austria, 2009. 143-153. Print.

Lane, Carla. “Multiple Intelligences.” “The Distance Learning Technology Resource Guide.” N.p. n.d. Web. 28 January 2013.

Leviton, Richard. Brain Builders! A Lifelong Guide to Sharper Thinking, Better Memory, and an Age-Proof Mind. Parker Publishing Company: West Nyack, New York, 1995. Print.

Storr, Anthony. Music and the Mind. Macmillan, Inc.,The Free Press: New York, New York, 1992. Print.

Wendrich, Kenneth. Essays on Music in American Education and Society. University Press of America: Washington D.C., 1982. Print.

The Illegitimization of the American Government

Leave a reply

Jared Emry

All natural and technological processes proceed in such a way that the availability of the remaining energy decreases.  In all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves an isolated system, the entropy of that system increases.  An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.  There are no exceptions to the second law of thermodynamics.  The Federal Reserve tries to sustain the unsustainable.  The Federal Reserve depends on several economic illusions in order to operate the monetary system.  These illusions are unsustainable.  Today we live in a country separated from its roots.  We live in a country that has denied even the most basic human rights and liberties for a false national security.  There are many manifestations of this denial: from the ignorance bred in the schools to the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, trial by jury, the incarceration of the Japanese citizens during the Second World War, and the many illegal wars.  However, the root of many of these problems lies directly at the feet of the monetary policy and the closely related direct taxes.  All other issues are paid for from the currency handled by the Federal Reserve, they supply the money.  The U.S. Federal Government is illegitimized by its immoral, impractical, and technically illegal practices concerning its illusory monetary policies.

Several terms must be defined and will be defined through Ludwig von Mises’s book Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War.  Etatism or statism is a system of sociopolitical ideas which holds no counterpart in older history and is not linked up with older ways of thinking with regards to the technical policies it recommends; a national policy in which the nation strives for autarky for the betterment of the nation without any considerations for the wellbeing of foreigners or other nations and is incompatible with the ideals of free trade; may with some justification be called “neo-mercantilism;” appears in two forms, interventionalism and socialism (27, 53-57, 77, 95-96).  Interventionalism is a national policy of getting involved in other nation’s politics or economics (53).  Socialism is a national policy of denying individual rights to property (70-71).  Etatism is the antonym of (classical) liberalism or libertarianism.  Liberalism is the philosophy of liberty, free markets, limited government, democracy, and parliamentarianism (xii, 37-38, 131-35).  Parliamentarianism is a method of dividing the power in the government to create a balance of oversight and redress.  Chauvinism is a presumption of the superior qualities or achievement of one’s own nation (2).  Patriotism is the desire for good for one’s nation (2-3).  Nationalism is a doctrine recommending a certain type of action and the policy by which the action is consummated with the action being an infliction of harm on another country for promoting the welfare of the nation (2-3, 137-140).  A nation is a soul or moral principle that daily confirms its existence by manifesting its will to political cooperation within the same state.  A monetary policy is the method employed by the state to control the currency.  A monetary system is the currency’s natural habitat, the economic sphere the currency has influence over.  Inflation is the artificial increase in the supply money and credit.  A free market is an economic system that is unregulated or minimally regulated.

First, the illegitimization of the Government through its monetary policies will be shown through the fact America’s currency is not backed by anything substantial.  Second, the illegitimate income tax will be shown as criminal with its relation to the monetary policy.  Third, the American government will be shown to have been illegitimized by dividing the laws against themselves.  Fourth, the idea America requires its military hegemony to be funded by the current monetary policies will be disproven.  Fifth, the proposal economic growth, and the economic hegemony be maintained, can only result from the current monetary policies.

The illegetimization of the Federal Government has only existed since the creation of the Federal Reserve, in 1913, and ends when the Federal Reserve is ended.  After the Federal Reserve is unchartered and abolished, the American government will begin regaining is legitimacy.  The history of the Federal Reserve started with its founding in the progressive era (1900-1940s), but its cause really started just after the American Civil War.  After the War Between the States, the presidents tried to maintain a gold standard for the currency.  The populists desired a more elastic monetary base, silver.  The banks wanted even greater elasticity so they could increase their profits.  They also wanted to socialize their risks.  Their solution was the Federal Reserve.  It was popularized by Jacob Shiff in 1907.  In 1910, a  J.P. Morgan senior partner Henry Davison, John D. Rockefeller’s man in the senate Nelson Aldrich, central banking advocate Paul Warburg, National City Bank vice president Frank Vanderlip, and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury A. Piatt Andrew came together and conceived the Federal Reserve.  By 1913 their plan had become a reality.  The entire monetary system of the United States was put into the hands of a few major bankers.  From then on, the United States monetary system has done nothing more than serve their interests.  Hans Sennholz called that fateful day “the most tragic blunder ever committed by congress.  The day it passed, old America died and a new era began” (21).  The private banks gained the power to change the monetary base which allows them to cause inflation to give themselves financial liquidity in times of need while insulating themselves from the consequences of their over extension of credit and bad loans.  The status quo of bankers becoming rich at the expense of the nation has remained the same since the Federal Reserve was founded.  The issues surrounding the United States monetary policy is important for every citizen to know because it is ineffective to discuss the American economy without understanding and considering fundamental issues about the money itself (Paul, End the Fed 1).

The first argument is the currency itself is not backed by anything substantial.  The currency is based on the United State Federal Government’s ability to pay off its debt.  In essence it is backed by the GDP or gross domestic product.  The currency is based off the income the Government makes from taxing its people.  The indirect result of this is the U.S. Dollar is backed by the future income of its citizens.  The people have their futures held as collateral by the Fed.  Secondly, the monetary policies are constructed over bogus wealth multipliers through fractional-reserve banking in which $1,000 suddenly becomes an illusory $10,000.  The magic multiplier works by taking money from a depositor and loaning it out.  For example, if a depositor deposited $10 in a bank, the bank would use that money to loan $1 to ten investors who all will hopefully make a profit and add more money to the system.  But who has the money at that point?  The bank has essentially pretended to double the money when the money doesn’t really exist.  If the depositor took back their $10, then the ten investors fail because they never had money in the first place.  These fractional-reserve tactics were the main cause of the Great Depression (12-32).  Fractional-reserve banking is normally too risky for the average bank to practice.  However, the Federal Reserve creates a scenario that allows for the fractional reserve banking by making it profitable regardless of risk.  The Federal Reserve is a central bank that socializes the losses that would typically be placed on the member banks.  The member banks are able to make a large profit by loaning out money.  The risk is gone because more money will be printed by the Federal Reserve if the bank begins to fail.  In an economic boom the member banks are able to loan as much as they want.  In an economic bust the member banks are sustained by the Federal Reserve at the expense of nonmembers.  Ludwig Von Mises explains how it affects the individual,

The clients of the expanding bank receive additional credits, they expand their business activities, they appear on the market with an additional demand for goods and services, they bid up prices.  Those people who are not clients of the expanding bank are not in a position to afford those higher prices; they are forced to restrict their purchases.  Thus there prevails on the market a shifting of goods from the nonclients to the clients of the expanding bank.

(Human Action 437)

The system is designed in such a way that the banks take money from the poor and give it to the rich.  The Federal Reserve allows the member banks to expand and profit on the backs of American workers.

Second, the income tax is essentially an indirect violation of the right to life.  The income tax by nature is the government putting a claim on everything a person has.  In a nation where the government has instituted an income tax the individual’s right to the freedom of disposition disappears.  This form of direct taxation has been part of socialist and communist planning since Karl Marx first observed an income tax is the greatest weapon in the fight for communism (Paul, End the Fed 172).  The tax redistributes the wealth and places collective rights over individual rights.  When a nation institutes such a task, it is literally saying what you own doesn’t belong to you but to the government.  The income tax denies the concept of private property.

The right to private property is just an extension of the right to life.  The right to life is an empty title if the materials needed to sustain life are unavailable.  The materials to sustain life come through labor.  The energy put into the labor is part of the life-force of the laborer.  The title of life is passed on to the materials needed to sustain life.  Therefore, the laborer has a right to the materials he created because he has a right to life.  He also maintains the right to dispose of the materials as he sees fit because he owns them.  This concept also applies beyond mere sustenance.  Whatever work someone puts into something is part of their life and is theirs.  Viewed this way, all rights are offshoots of the original right to life at their fundamental levels.  For example, stealing is a sin because it violates a person’s right to property.  Essentially the act of stealing is taking all of the time and effort, or lifeforce, the person used to obtain an object.  The thief has not only stolen an object but also has caused time the victim could have spent in a better way to be wasted.  The victim only has a set amount of time on earth and must either go without the object of his desires or attempt to get another.  Either way the thief has done irreparable damage by causing the victim to lose a portion of his life to receive nothing.  In a similar fashion all sins man can do to another man all someway relate back to harming someone’s right to life.  Another great example is of this theory comes from the sacrament of marriage.  When two people are married, their bodies become the property of their spouse.  In this way adultery is fundamentally using property without the permission of the owner.  Also by the same logic, since God owns everyone and everything, everything is His property.  He gets to determine how we can use that property.  Violating His holy Word is misusing His property and so He is entirely justified in punishing the trespassers how He might see fit.  In God’s case He has an infinite lifeforce that can never be exhausted.  This theory also highlights virtues.  The virtue of true generosity becomes an act of willingly giving part of one’s life away.  Obedience becomes an act of willingly giving a portion of one’s life to another.  Thrift becomes the act of not wasting one’s life over expensive material possessions.  Selflessness becomes the act of putting other people’s lives above oneself.  The description of the virtues does not change much with the new perspective, highlighting how the theory syncs with traditional views on virtue.

The income tax violates the right to life because it violates the right to property by denying the freedom of disposition.  Property rights are nothing without the freedom of disposition.  If you can’t do anything with something you own, it can’t really be yours.  The income tax specifically targets the freedom of disposition.  Taxpayers may receive compensation in the form of “free” healthcare or “free education,” which certainly may be valued at the same price as the tax, but the taxpayers lose their right to decide what they wanted to spend that money on.  No government can establish a valid claim to the citizens’ lives because the title to one’s life comes from a transcendent authority beyond this world, whether the authority is merely a natural law based on one’s evolutionary desire to live or a deity.  Unfortunately, the United States government decided for itself it had a valid claim on the American people’s lives when the Sixteenth Amendment passed.  Now the government does not respect your right to property; it merely recognizes you have need of some of the products of your labor.  If you take a look at your income tax report you will see the government gives you set allowances to fit what it sees as your needs.  Since the government does not recognize your rights to the products of your labors, there is nothing stopping the government from taking all but what is needed to survive.  The only thing that stops them from taking everything is the fact you don’t produce anything once you are dead.  This can clearly be seen by taking a quick look at some statistics.  In 1913, a person who had no dependents would pay on average $20 for every $5,000 he made.  By 1950, a person in the same situation would have to pay an average of $964 for every $5,000 made.  Unfortunately, the buying power of the dollar also decreased over that span of time and so that $5,000 wouldn’t go as far.  This same trend in the income tax has continued since its beginning and every step has been down the road to serfdom.  Slavery is nothing more than a total income tax.  If one forces another to work with a threat of harm and takes all the person labored for, then that person is being taxed of what they labored for.  The owner of the slaves gives the slaves enough to live on, not because the owner believes the slave has a right to it, but because he needs to make sure the slave can continue another day.  The same principle is the basis behind the income tax (Chodorov 7-14).

Third, any system where the law is divided against itself is illegitimized.  The highest laws are based on a single concept: the right to life.  Murder is a crime because it directly violates someone’s right to life.  Stealing is wrong because it deprives someone of the extension of their life, which is known as property.  All essential, unalienable, natural, human rights are based on the right to life.  Any law, Constitutional amendment, policy, or regulation that conflicts with these basic fundamentals of the law is divided against the law.  This is why any evil the government does in America is said to be “unconstitutional,” even if the evil legally exists within the Constitution.  The United States Constitution enshrines the primary concepts of the natural right and so when people say something is “unconstitutional” they mean it violates those fundamental rights and is therefore evil.  The income tax is a perfect example of this concept.  The income tax has been added to the Constitution in the form of an amendment, but it is still often rejected as being robbery.  The income tax is robbery.  It plunders from one group and gives it freely to the next.  A people who are intent on getting something-for-nothing from government cannot cavil over the infringement of their rights by that government.  If the price demanded for getting something-for-nothing is their rights, the people will gladly accept.  The income tax takes directly from the laborer’s paychecks to create the illusion they received something free from the government when in fact they themselves and their fellow citizens paid for it already.  They may get something of value in return for sacrificing their incomes to the government, but they lose their rights in the process.  In this way, the people are desensitized to the evils around them (Bastiat 1-8).

Fourth, the opponents to my theory that the government is illegitimized by its monetary policy say the government requires the revenue from the Federal Reserve and the income tax.  They say the government requires the money to retain its hegemony and without the hegemony more things like 9/11 will happen (Paul, End the Fed 80-95).  There are several flaws in that line of thinking.  The invalidity of those theories can best be seen when their imperialistic ideologies are contrasted to the ideology behind the American Republic.  “The Framers did not design the American republic for imperial greatness, but when it functions as intended, it produces something even greater than empire: a free society with limited government and the rule of law” (Federici 6).  Empire is defined by one attribute: conquest.  Conquest does not necessarily refer to taking land but could also be the spreading of an ideology through force.  David Gelenter argues for continued American imperialism saying, “America’s participation in World War I was her attempt to act like the new chosen people, to set forth on a chivalrous quest to perfect the world; to spread liberty, equality, and democracy to all mankind” (147).  He continues saying the U.S. “must use the evil of war to spread the good of liberty, equality, democracy” (156).  The central reason behind this claim is nothing more than nationalistic hubris.  It is essentially a claim it is better to be dead than not living in an America-like environment.  This American imperialism, or Americanism, is vastly different from the republic the Framers created.  An America-styled republic, as created by the Framers, focuses on local, modest goals: the family, the soul, the church, the neighborhood, other communities.  It emphasizes the greatness of the common man, the individual, and how he interacts with his society.  Michael Federici sums up this idea succinctly,

What is at issue is the meaning of greatness.  According to one view, of which the Framers were representative, personal moral character is an essential attribute of a certain kind of greatness….  Using power to promote the common good and lead men to virtue makes it consistent with true greatness.  George Washington is a great man because he, unlike most rulers, did not lust for power as an end in itself and was willing to share it and use it for the common good.  George III is said to have called Washington “the greatest man in the world” because he put down the Newburgh Conspiracy; he refused great power because he knew it would be destructive to republicanism in America.  He chose the modest path, a different kind of greatness, the greatness of Cicero and Cato and other men who risked their lives in efforts to save the republic from empire (9).

Imperial greatness is fundamentally contradictory to Republican greatness.  Imperialists measure greatness by how far the ideology spreads, regardless of casualties.  The imperialist version of greatness coincides with power monopolies or hegemonies.  These monopolies can be based off races (the Aryans of Nazi Germany), epochs (the atomic age), or nations (imperial Rome).  The group with hegemony can use their newfound power to deter and coerce other groups with credible threats or promises.  Hegemonies naturally exist in all areas of life and or normally harmless and short-lived.  The problem occurs when the cards are stacked to create a perpetual hegemony for the sake of power; this problem is a central problem to imperialism.  Essentially, power for power’s sake is the measure of imperial greatness.  The greatness of the republic and the greatness of the empire are mutually exclusive.  “To argue for American empire is to argue against the American constitutional heritage; it is to import a pedigree of thinking, politics, and government that is alien to and destructive of America’s constitutional order….  The emergence of the American constitutional order cannot be understood apart from its growing out of opposition to empire” (Federici 10).  America cannot both be the Republic it claims to be and still have the attributes of an empire; they are fundamentally incompatible.

If the Federal Reserve is taken out of the picture, then the government would have to fall back toward its constitutional limitations.  American imperialism would have to decline significantly.  The system of illusory money from policies, such as the fractional-reserve banking, the excessive printing of more currency, and the income tax, has sustained the military hegemony long enough.  The United States has managed to stay at war for roughly seventy-five consecutive years and the wars need to stop for three reasons.  First, imperialism is the cause and effect of the war.  “Empire means conquest, and conquest means tensions, violence, and war” (Federici 10).  The wars are often used as an excuse for imperialistic pursuit of more wars, i.e. the war on terrorism and the war on drugs.  It is a cycle.  America conquered Iraq based on a presupposition Iraq might possibly be infringing on American nuclear hegemony, an entirely imperialistic cause.  The Iraqi invasion greatly increased tensions in the neighboring countries, which lead to an invasion of Afghanistan, droning over Pakistan, Iran, and other countries, and several civil wars throughout the region.  There will probably be a war with Iran soon.  Second, the current wars in the Middle East help cause terrorism and do not solve for terrorism.  By going to war in the Middle East, the military causes collateral damage that can provoke otherwise peaceful people to take arms against the United States.  A peaceful Muslim may turn violent against the United States if a drone accidentally kills his family.  The wars are likely to increase the number of people who want revenge on the United States.  If those few people decide to get their revenge and carry out an act of terrorism, the U.S. Military will respond and kill more people.  A cycle of bloodshed is created that makes the war endless until the entire country is strictly subjugated.  There will always be terrorists in the world because men will continue to do evil things.  Third, the spending required maintaining the military can’t be sustained on a collapsing economy.  The change in the monetary policies will necessarily put a stop to the wars and solve for the harms more efficiently by not causing a hate cycle.  Thus, the end of American imperialism is a good thing not a bad thing.

Fifth, the opponents to my theory also propose without the current monetary policies America cannot maintain its economic hegemony.  Unfortunately America’s economic hegemony is probably already doomed.  “There should be no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion” (Mises, Human Action 570).  The only two possible outcomes now are based on whether we collapse the economy or wait for it to collapse itself.  If we collapse it now by correcting our illusory system now, we reap the consequences of our actions before the consequences become worse.  If we wait for the economy to have a total collapse later, we will face the full force of an economy being destroyed.  Either option would cause something that would look like a Great Depression, however that is an illusion.  In reality, the illusion of wealth would be destroyed, and America would be left as its true self; the nation would have to go through a kind of withdrawal from the economic high it has been experiencing.  The first option would not be nearly as bad as the second, and maybe the system could be gradually released to try to allow some economic healing on the way down to the economic base, but the current policies will force a cold turkey style of change and cause massive withdrawal.  Ben Bernanke, the man running the Federal Reserve, believes he can avoid this depression through continuing his policies, but the law of entropy shows the futility of such actions (Paul, End the Fed 95-113).  Essentially, America may lose its economic hegemony temporarily, but that is entirely necessary to prevent a worse collapse and to allow the economy to heal naturally.  If it isn’t done, America’s economy won’t be able to heal.  The Congress’s and the Federal Reserve’s illusory money and inflationary policies are destroying the system and will continue to destroy the system.  Historically, every time any nation has tried to use fiat money to grow, it falls shortly thereafter.  For example, the Byzantine Empire had a gold standard for about 600 years.  The currency remained stable the entire time, and their economy thrived.  Emperor Nicephorus III grabbed control over the monetary system and devalued it in order to wage a war with the Turks.  In turn the war with the Turks was his justification for devaluing the currency.  Ironically, the devaluation of their currency created economic chaos which allowed the Turks to win the war (143).  As long as the Federal Reserve remains in control with its magic money, America’s economy will not be improving.  Rest assured, the banking elite will alter the numbers the best they can to make everything appear fine while the economy will be dying.  The longer the Federal Reserve is in charge, the longer the balance will be shifted.

The Federal Government is illegitimized by its monetary policies.  The citizens of any country run by an illegitimized government should protest against the flagrant miscarriage of justice caused by the policies.  In 1 Kings 12, the people of Israel were in a similar situation and protested.  However, one should not stone the Internal Revenue Service Agents like they did to Rehoboam’s Tax Collector (Chodorov 1-2).  There is a better way to change the system.  The Framers left an emergency escape.  Although the balance has shifted in favor of the Federal Government, the balance between the states and the Federal Government still exists.  Although States’ Rights have been diminishing since the Civil War, the states can still repeal the Sixteenth Amendment, the Federal Reserve can be abolished, and a gold standard can be reinstituted.  Unless the states, as we know them, are abolished, the revolution will happen eventually because it is in the self-interest of the fifty political institutions.  The will for change merely needs to be generated.  The individual citizen can contribute to this will by becoming politically active at either the state or the local levels of politics.  Spreading awareness may also be helpful to the cause.  Action should be taken soon before the window of opportunity closes, but the American people must make their tradition for freedom a priority; the American people must want to be free (Chodorov 75-81).

Works Cited

Bastiat, Frédéric. The Law. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: Foundation for Economic Education, 1950. Print.

Bernanke, Ben S. National Economics Club, Washington D.C. 21 Nov. 2002. Speech.

Chodorov, Frank. The Income Tax, Root of All Evil. New York: Devin-Adair, 1954. Print.

Federici, Michael P. “Imperialism Destroys the Constitutional Republic.” Thesis.

Mercyhurst College, 2007. Imperialism Destroys the Constitutional Republic. National Humanities Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies. Web. 27 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nhinet.org/federici20-1.pdf&gt;.

Frum, David, and Richard Norman Perle. An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. New York: Random House, 2003. 239.

Gelernter, David Hillel. Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion. New York: Doubleday, 2007.

Paul, Ron. End the Fed. New York: Grand Central Pub., 2009. Print.

—. The Revolution: A Manifesto. New York: Grand Central Pub., 2008. Print.

Sennholz, Hans F. Money and Freedom. Spring Mills, PA: Libertarian, 1985. Print.

Von Mises, Ludwig. Human Action: A Treatise On Economics. Chicago: H. Regnery, 1966. Print.

—. Omnipotent Government. New Haven: Yale UP, 1944. Print.

The Identity and Impact of Vikings in Developing Europe

Leave a reply

Elsa Lang Lively

Declan, the Irish monk, strolls up the abbey stairs with his steaming bowl of chicken broth to get a bird’s eye view of the shoreline while saying his morning prayers.  After several minutes of intense chanting he opens his eyes to witness the first rays of the morning light shoot out from the horizon.  To his horror, the day’s dawn reveals three rapidly approaching boats with dragon heads fixed upon the ships’ bows.  Gasping in horror, he recalls the stories of the infamous Vikings his father and grandfather would tell while sitting around the dinner table.  Realizing he must alert his fellow brethren of these vicious marauders, he wildly stumbles over to the bell tower, his chicken broth ration sloshing out across the floor.  He sounds the bells — one, two, three times — to give out the distress signal.  Unfortunately for Declan, he also remembers he has taken a vow of silence just three days prior and is unable to vocalize his fears to the other monks living in the abbey under penalty of spiritual discipline.  After some serious contemplation on the roof, he madly stumbles down the stone stairs before bumbling into a tall, strong, blond warrior with axe poised in hand.

When many think of the Vikings, they picture a scenario like this one, with Norsemen pillaging and destroying everything in sight, attempting to eradicate religion and peace in neighboring European countries.  What many do not realize, however, is the Vikings had a more significant impact on developing Europe than many give them credit for.  The Vikings contributed greatly to European political structure, economy, and culture.

The Vikings are defined by Collins English Dictionary as “any of the Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes who raided by sea most of northern and western Europe from the 8th to the 11th centuries, later often settling, as in parts of Britain” (Fitzhugh 41).  Archaeologists have found artifacts from pre-Viking times in Scandinavia revealing modern-day Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were made up of multiple kingdoms or clans.  Before Scandinavian people began to pillage and explore more southern nations, they were already forming economic centers and trading among other Scandinavian tribes.  Kingdoms in southern Norway, for example, were already trading with other kingdoms throughout Norway as well as with the Saami in the far north and with the Danes and those in the western Baltic.  Although these separate tribes traded among each other and shared the same pagan beliefs in Norse gods such as Odin, Thor, and Loki, the Scandinavian countries as we know them today did not exist during the time of the Vikings.  The individuality of each tribe and kingdom was a defining characteristic of the Viking age (41).

There are several theories as to why the Vikings started to seek their fortunes overseas, such as the desire for land, wealth, and fame.  “Only some three percent of the land in Norway is suitable for arable farming” (Fitzhugh 32).  Scandinavians were limited in their sources of income during this time period and could really only make a living off of trading, some farming, and craftsmanship.  Long and harsh winters made it difficult for Nordic peoples to earn an income year round because conditions were too brutal to work outdoors for extended periods of time.  Not only did they want to bring resources from other lands back to Scandinavia, but also they also wanted to form settlements in places they invaded to have later access to their natural and produced resources.

Scandinavians who “went Viking,” meaning they temporarily left their villages or towns to seek wealth abroad, had adventurous spirits and showed bravery in combat.  Part of the reason for this is due to the worship of pagan Norse gods during this time (Allan 65).  Vikings sacrificed to their gods before they went out pillaging and believed by having success in combat they would bring honor to their gods and their clans.  Because the Vikings were pagans, no sacred places were off-limits to them when they were set on pillaging.  This meant the Vikings could take riches and relics from other countries in churches and monasteries and not feel guilty about their loot.

Viking society was very structured and operated under a three-part class system.  The highest class was made up of the kings and nobles, who were families with wealth, land, and rank.  Below them were the freemen, who made up the majority of the Viking people, and finally the slaves.  Not all Scandinavians were Vikings, and a large percentage of the Nordic people were traders, craftsmen, or farmers.  Scandinavians with these professions aided the Viking voyages by building long ships or providing supplies and food for the voyagers.  Women, too, were raised to be strong and capable of providing for their families and taking on responsibilities of running farms and businesses while the men were off pillaging and colonizing (Lassieur 54).

The identity and impact of the Vikings on developing Europe are topics not often addressed or given much attention by today’s society.  As the years pass, some aspects of history are remembered and taught to the next generations, while others are overlooked and often misconstrued because not enough attention is paid to the facts.  It is important to be informed about many different people groups and events in history so they are not forgotten by future generations and so we can have a clearer, more accurate picture of the past, using what we observe from the past to improve our future as a society.  If we preserve these areas of history through research and promotion of archaeological findings, then the history of the Vikings and Norse people groups will be preserved for many more years to come.

In order to prove my thesis, that the Vikings had a significant impact on developing European political structure, economy, and culture, I will first address these three areas of influence before refuting two counter-arguments: first, the Vikings were merely barbarians and destroyers of history, and there is no pressing need to study the Vikings and their impact on developing European countries.

The first point I will address to support my thesis is the Vikings had a significant impact on European political structure.  Because the extent of the Vikings raids and exploration reached from the deserts of the Middle East to the shores of North America, the Vikings directly impacted each area in which they found themselves.  The most significant impacts concerning early European political structure were largely centered in the British Isles, modern-day Russia, and France.  In the British Isles specifically, “Viking settlers to Great Britain brought new ideas, such as the beginnings of the feudal system of government that became the norm long after the Vikings’ influence faded.  The Vikings created and founded market towns.  They introduced new ideas about law and justice that became the foundation for many modern justice systems” (Lassieur 9).  Even after the Vikings ceased to directly control Great Britain, the British people still used the structure the Vikings employed in government and laws to promote prosperity and stability, and they added to the growth and success of economically powerful towns and ports the Vikings had founded.

Another lasting impact the Vikings had on developing British political structure was the emergence of British national pride.  “The raids gave to the emergence of a sense of common identity among the English peoples, and the context they provided for the formulation of a distinctively Alfredian political order” (Sawyer 63).  Because the Vikings had begun to threaten the political stability of various British provinces through raiding, the people of Britain, who had once been divided into multiple smaller kingdoms based on geographical location, were encouraged to join forces under a common British identity to have a better chance of protecting their heritage and culture during the time of Viking occupation.  The Vikings may not have planned on having this kind of impact on British politics, yet their presence in Britain shaped the future of the British political structure.  Even after the age of the Vikings was long over, the conditions for England to prosper politically and operate nationally were caused by the presence of the Vikings.

The Vikings did not only make this impact on English political structure but also on Irish and Scottish political structures as well.  Specifically in Ireland, the frequent pillaging and looting caused Celts to realize their need for a more central form of government, which they chose to form into a royal sovereignty.  “The idea that there should be a kingship of Ireland, pursued with great energy in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, owed more to foreign example and to the economic and political changes brought about by the Vikings than to inherited concepts of power.  They brought Ireland into closer political and economic contact with Britain and the European mainland” (Sawyer 109).  When the Vikings settled in Ireland, they brought with them economic opportunity through trade, constructing coastal towns that grew enormously over the years in prosperity and population, such as Dublin, Wexford, Cork, and Limerick, even after the end of the Viking age.  In this way, the European world became a more connected place as Viking rule united previously separate and remote people groups, especially those living in Ireland at the time.

Even before Viking longboats had started to frequent the British Isles, the feared Norsemen had already made a lasting political influence in France.  Evidence of the Viking raids and ultimately colonization on French soil can be seen in the region of Normandy.  The name of Normandy itself hearkens back to the age of the Nordic peoples who settled in France.  As far as affecting French politics, the Vikings greatly influenced developing French political structure during the time period.  “In 911 A.D. they founded Normandy as a virtually independent state in western France.  Having established a well-run government there, they spread out to conquer England in 1066, laying the foundations for that modern nation” (“The Vikings and their Impact”).  Other French states looked to the precedent of the Vikings in Normandy, as those living in Normandy were experiencing economic and political prosperity, while other areas of France were still struggling to establish a political structure that worked well.

Even further north, the Vikings were influential in the development of the Russian political state.  “In the 850s and 860s, they made their way into Russia where they would found city-states that included Kiev & Novgorod” (“The Influence of Vikings on European Culture”).  As a result, Novgorod and Kiev became influential cities in the formation of the Novgorod Republic, a large and powerful medieval Russian state which rose to power between the 12th and 15th centuries and set the framework for the developing Russian nation.  Before the arrival of the Vikings, there was little to no political structure in developing Russia, and an external influence was necessary to cause early Russian cities to grow in economic and political influence at the time they did.  As the Vikings had already done in the British Isles by promoting economic growth and trade among their neighboring European nations, they also caused these newly developing trade towns to grow at rapid rates, connecting Russia with the rest of Europe through trade by sea.  The cities of Novgorod and Kiev, founded early on by the Vikings, grew into prosperous centers for political and economic wealth long after the end of the Viking age.

No matter where the Vikings chose to settle and gain political control in Europe, they employed their own political styles of central leadership of a head of a clan or state to govern a larger people group.  Although the native people groups of countries such as England, Ireland, Scotland, and France probably did not like the idea of being ruled by foreigners, the Vikings did bring order to the areas which they ruled and set a precedent for political structure these countries used as a framework for their own national rule after the Viking age came to an end.

The Vikings’ ideas about law continued to influence governments throughout the Western world.  Their system of allotting land to trusted members of a leader’s army was the foundation for the feudal system, a governmental philosophy that was in place in Europe for more than four hundred years after the Viking Age.  And the Viking idea of allowing ordinary citizens to have a say in government, developed in the Viking civilization … was the basis of many democracies and republics founded in later centuries.  Some historians suspect that the Founding Fathers of the United States may have looked to the ancient Vikings for ideas on how to develop their new governmental system.

(Lassieur 98)

The feudal system greatly shaped the developing European political system, especially in the British Isles.  This goes to show politics and divisions of power were centered around philosophies the Vikings previously introduced, and the people living in these feudal societies continued to incorporate their own political views over the years to follow.

My second argument in support of my thesis is the Vikings also significantly influenced the developing European economic system.  The Vikings focused on establishing trade ports along British, Irish, French, Scandinavian, and Russian coastlines to further their trade productivity.  Because the Vikings were seafaring people, it made sense for them to continue making a living in a way connected to the sea and river systems.  The Vikings traded with and pillaged towns connected to nearly every waterway in Europe, from northern seas to the Mediterranean and even across the Atlantic Ocean.  “They were the first to pioneer trade routes down the Volga and the Dnieper; they opened the routes to Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire; they traded with the Franks and the Baltic; and they even opened up the routes to the Far East” (“The Influence of Vikings on European Culture”).  Long after the Viking age came to an end, the trade routes they previously established and made famous across Europe continued to be used by European traders for years to follow.

Not only did the Vikings establish necessary trade routes to connect various European nations during the time period, but their innovation also led to a new kind of economy in northern Europe — one based on the use of currency derived from metals.  This type of economic system was a newer, more advanced system than the system of trading and bartering for goods that had been so popular in many parts of developing northern Europe up until that point.  “This led to the creation of international markets and trading across the ‘known world’ of the time” (“The Influence of Vikings on European Culture”).  Northern European countries were now more capable of developing their own mercantile markets based upon a uniform currency and could start to build up their regional economies.

My third confirmation argument is the significant impact the Vikings had on developing Europe through various nations’ various cultures.  Because the Vikings settled and had temporary control over countries such as modern-day England, Wales, Ireland, Scotland, and France, they influenced the cultures of these developing nations in multiple ways, some of which are still evident today.  For example, “Place names are an invaluable source of information on the extent of Scandinavian influence, and their distribution mirrors the geographical spread of colonisation [sic] known from historical and archaeological evidence.  In England, for instance, Scandinavian names are concentrated within the Danelaw, the area of northern and eastern England that was in Danish hands” (“Viking Colonists”).  Names of towns and villages in the British Isles still in existence today can often trace their names back as far as Viking rule.  Places names ending in –by, –thorpe, and –thwaite, for example, are sure signs of previous Viking occupation and influence.  Even a thousand years later, the establishment of towns by the Vikings still plays a role in geography and culture today.

In Normandy, the Norsemen who had established their own separate political state in France integrated into French culture, borrowing from French customs while still maintaining their own distinct Scandinavian traditions.  The result of intermarriage and the passing of years led to a new people group — the Normans (Ringler 57). This caused the region of Normandy both to have a French identity by geographical location and remain a distinctly Norse people group as well in their customs and manner of living.  Even today, the region of Normandy has its own distinct dialect and traditional dress, setting it apart from the rest of France.

The Vikings were not just raiders, fighters, traders, and rulers, but also innovators and explorers as well.  Through excavations in early Viking settlements in Britain, archaeologists have found items that have demonstrated the superb craftsmanship and skill of Viking settlers during the time period.

They were very skilled craftsman capable of creating a wide range of high quality material goods.  Artifacts from Viking Dublin include wooden spindles, a wide variety of bone needles, hundreds of examples of cloth and wool and spools of thread, and a huge variety of leather goods, including boots and shoes.  Excavations at Jorvik, which demonstrate that the city greatly expanded in population and wealth under Viking rule, produced an equally rich assortment of pins, needles, spindles, cloth, leather, and other artifacts that indicate their prowess at creating clothing and garments from leather and cloth.

(“The Influence of Vikings on European Culture”)

One of the most referenced cultural and technological contributions the Vikings made to developing Europe was undoubtedly the Viking long ship.  The Viking long ship was a highly advanced form of nautical engineering for the time period, and many other European nations attempted to copy the design of the Viking long ship due to its speed, sleek design, and durable structure.  Excavated long ships in Scandinavia and northern Britain support what some have called folklore — that the Vikings did, in fact, make the voyage across the Atlantic as far as North America, as their long ships were built solidly enough and could travel fast enough to complete the voyage.

The Vikings made natural explorers as well.  It makes sense the Vikings would be so good at exploration, due to their love of the seas, their ability to survive and adapt to harsh climates, and their cultural beliefs that caused them to seek adventure and bring honor to their gods and to their families.  “They were the pre-eminent explorers of their time, being the first to discover the Faeroes, Iceland, Greenland, North America, and Spitzbergen, the farthest point North that had ever been reached by explorers in 1194.  Discovered in 1961 by the Norwegian explorer Helge Ingstad, an international team of archaeologists excavating the site at L’Anse aux Meadows unearthed the remains of eight Viking long houses as well as a blacksmith’s shop complete with anvil, iron fragments and slag” (“The Influence of Vikings on European Culture”).  These archaeological finds and more have solidified the proof of Viking exploration to the ends of the earth, despite rough conditions that would it make it near impossible for people to survive.  Because the Vikings journeyed to parts of the world where no European settlers had previously been, they increased their global spread of Norse culture and colonization to other northern territories.

Although their settlements in North America were not destined to last, they proved the voyage to a “New World” truly was possible to other neighboring cultures, which followed Vikings’ example in exploration and colonization for years to come.  They also had a lasting impact on Iceland, which is still considered to be a Scandinavian country today.  After exploring various lands outside of close neighboring European countries, the Vikings looked onward to see what other wealth and opportunity could be found elsewhere, establishing colonies in both Greenland and Iceland.  Specifically in Iceland, the Vikings contributed to the formation of the local language, place names, and the style of open government, which included the jury system.  Their development of a distinctive Icelandic culture can be seen in their literature, the Icelandic Sagas.  “The Sagas in Iceland, which told of family, feuds, and the great kings and their voyages, was the height of medieval literature of the time” (“The Influence of Vikings on European Culture”).

The extent of the Vikings’ influence may be even greater than historians and archaeologists speculate, as more evidence and artifacts are dug up in Britain, France, and Scandinavia with each passing year.  With every new piece of evidence found, the case for a significant impact on developing Europe due to the Viking age only grows stronger.  Yet the evidence and history already available about the Vikings has truly changed the way many perceive the Vikings and has caused many to realize the significant impact the Vikings had on developing European political structure, economy, and culture.

The first counter-argument people often make against the Vikings is the Vikings were purely barbarians and destroyers of history, as they frequently burned records and removed historical and religious artifacts from houses of worship.  It cannot be denied the Vikings pillaged and ransacked monasteries and churches, especially in the British Isles; however, many believe these are the only contributions, or lack thereof, the Vikings made in Europe.  This is simply not true. They built prosperous towns, established governments, and promoted trade among other European nations.  Their goal was not just to bring prosperity back to their clans in Scandinavia by taking resources, but also to branch out and colonize other areas of Europe as well.

It is important to remember the Vikings were pagans and were not really concerned with sacred religious artifacts and the respecting of church leaders.  Because of a lack of Christian influence in their culture, there was no Biblical moral code they were compelled to follow.  They targeted monasteries and houses of worship simply because they housed the most wealth and monetary resources they could take back to their clans in Scandinavia, not because they wanted to kill all the Christians in Europe.

It is also necessary to keep in mind the Vikings lived during a very bloody time in European history in general.  The Vikings were not the only ones invading and pillaging other towns.  This does not justify their actions but does go to show during times of unrest and instability, men act based upon their needs of survival and desire to prosper.  The goal of the Vikings was simply to acquire more resources and wealth to provide for their villages, bringing honor to their gods and their families in the process.  Being a Viking for a period of time was a way of life for many Scandinavians.  Most would become Vikings temporarily to bring back enough wealth to start a business or to make sure their families would be financially stable.  Usually, men that became Vikings participated in several expeditions before returning to a lifestyle that involved either trade or industry.

A second major counter-argument is there is no need to study the Vikings and their impact on developing European countries.  Some might argue other empires lasted much longer than the Vikings and had more significant impacts or contributions on society.  Although the age of the Vikings did not last as long as the Roman Empire or the Egyptian Empire did, this does not mean the Vikings should be forgotten simply because some believe they are not as worthwhile of a subject to study.  If we pick and choose which portions of history should be studied, then we lose sight of many important aspects of history that have equally contributed to and influenced society today.  Because historical events are built upon other historical events preceding them, no aspect of history has not influenced another key part of history.  To ignore a certain event or people group would mean ignoring the cause of another event or development in history.  The Vikings truly did influence history — it is just a matter of how much attention society wants to devote to them today.

The study of history affects different people in different ways.  One popular way in which many people devote time to studying history is through researching their ancestors and finding out how far back their roots can be traced.  Many find their identities in the past, since the past shapes the present and the future, either positively or negatively.  Since researching the past is a way in which history truly comes alive for many, people can trace their roots back to Scandinavian origins or to locations in Europe that were once Viking colonies.  In this way, the studying of Viking culture and impact on Europe does still influence people today.  Scandinavian countries certainly have been impacted by their Viking heritage, but the influence of the Vikings has stretched much further than just these countries through settlements and colonization in other European countries.  Through storytelling and record-keeping, both the stories and the folklore of the fierce Vikings have been kept alive over the years.  Even in the United States are groups of people with either Norse ancestry or who are simply passionate about Scandinavian heritage called Sons of Norway.  Organizations like these keep history alive, and old Scandinavian culture is remembered and studied.  With every passing year, however, these historical groups shrink with a lack of interest in younger generations for the stories of the past.  By studying and learning more about people groups like the Vikings, not only is history preserved, but the next generations are taught how to appreciate and learn from the past as a way to cherish their heritage and incorporate the past with today’s culture.

While there is some truth to the modern cultural stereotype of the Norse Vikings, it is important to remember there is much more to the identity and impact of the Vikings than many realize.  From a Christian perspective, the Vikings did not add to the spiritual enlightenment of Europe because they were pagans.  The goal of the Vikings was not to promote morality and ethics but to acquire land and wealth to have a higher standard of living.  This does not mean, however, the Vikings could not or did not have a significant, or even positive, impact on developing Europe.  They not only caused their own territory in northern Europe to expand and become prosperous for years to come with their necessary establishment of trade routes that set the standard for Scandinavian economy, but they also built up other developing European nations in the process.  From looking at the historical facts objectively, overwhelming evidence exists in support of a positive Viking influence.  To ignore the positive impacts of the Viking age would mean ignoring a vital part of European history, a part from which many derive their culture and ancestry.  Like all other aspects of history, it is necessary to research and learn from all we can to have a more accurate and clear perception of the past and to grow as a society.

Works Cited

Allan, Tony. Exploring the Life, Myth, and Art of the Vikings. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2012. Print.

Fitzhugh, William W. and Ward, Elizabeth I. Vikings: the North Atlantic Saga. Washington D.C: Smithsonian Institution, 2000. Print.

“The Influence of Vikings on European Culture.”  Sourcing Innovation, April 2009. Web. Feb. 2013.

Lassieur, Allison. The Vikings. San Diego: Lucent Books, 2001. Print.

Sawyer, Peter. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Vikings. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1997. Print.

“Viking Colonists.” BBC History, 17 Feb. 2011. Web. Feb. 2013.

“Vikings.” Collins English Dictionary. 5th edition. 2003. Print.

“The Vikings and their Impact.” Flow of History, 2007. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.

Evidence for God from Wider Teleology

Leave a reply

Caitlin Montgomery Hubler

The argument from design for the existence of God originally propounded by William Paley, also known as the teleological argument, was long thought to have been refuted by Darwin’s revolutionary theory of evolution by natural selection.  However, in recent years, a new form of this argument has arisen.  Instead of focusing on specific instances of apparent purposive design, this argument seeks to emphasize what biologist Thomas Huxley referred to as “wider teleology” (“Darwin”).  Although Huxley was himself a staunch evolutionist, sometimes even referred to as “Darwin’s bulldog” (“Briefly Noted”), he nevertheless admitted there exists a teleology left untouched by evolution (“Darwin”).  “Wider teleology” emphasizes the necessary conditions for the existence of a universe that could even theoretically permit intelligent life in the first place.  It is this “wider teleological” argument that leads me to the conclusion God exists.

In recent years, the scientific community has been stunned by the sheer amount of complexity and sensitivity of the conditions necessary for the origin and evolution of life on earth.  In order for intelligent carbon-based life to even have the possibility of existing, it is dependent upon a delicate balance of both physical and cosmological factors.  For example, scientist G. J. Withrow found in 1955 life would be possible only in a universe with exactly three dimensions (“Teleological Argument”).  Our laws of chemistry and physics are entirely dependent upon dimensionality, and those laws provide many of the pre-existing conditions necessary for intelligent life.

Moreover, certain physical constants in the universe must be exactly as they are to permit life, namely, the four fundamental forces of gravity, the weak force, the strong force, and electromagnetism (“Teleological Argument”).  There is no scientifically necessary reason why these forces have these specific constants assigned to them rather than other constants; they simply happen to possess values such that life is permitted.  For example, if the constant of the strong force were increased by a mere 1%, nuclear resonance levels would be so altered nearly all carbon would be burned into oxygen (“Teleological Argument”).  Changes in electromagnetism by a sheer one part in 10^40 would result in the inability of stars like our sun to develop (“Teleological Argument”).  Examples of fine-tuning in this area are too numerous to count, including the ratio between the mass of protons and that of neutrons, the cosmological constant (the amount of dark energy in the universe), and the density of the universe (“Teleological Argument”).  Even the rate at which the universe expands is exquisitely fine-tuned such that if altered in the slightest degree, it would make intelligent life impossible (“Teleological Argument”).

A possible objection to this argument would be to assert that although fine-tuning is required for the existence of intelligent human life, perhaps, given any number of different sets of physical constants and arbitrary quantities, different forms of life might have arisen.  While it is true we may be able to imagine life in other possible universes, we can’t imagine life in just any other possible universe.  The concept of life is, by its very nature, complex.  Everything that is alive must die at some point in the finite future, and thus, the conditions necessary for survival of a particular life form must be fine-tuned.  In a world in which there were an extremely high amount of universes, the complex nature of life demands the set of life-permitting universes be extremely small.  Thus, we can conclude that any universe which would permit life would still possess significant fine-tuning due to the vast improbability of its occurrence.  It cannot be reasonably denied these are examples of apparent design left untouched by Darwin’s theory of evolution.  Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig proposes three possible explanations for this “wider teleology” of the universe: physical necessity, chance, or design.

One possible explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe is what Craig refers to as physical necessity, the idea the universe must necessarily be life-permitting due to a sort of “theory of everything” that would unify the various physical constants.  Surely, on its face, this alternative seems highly implausible.  One can imagine all sorts of possible universes in which the initial conditions were slightly modified as to prohibit the existence of intelligent human life.  Not only is there no evidence for this explanation, but we have good reason to reject it as well.

Included in the fine-tuning of the universe are certain arbitrary quantities in addition to the aforementioned physical constants not governed by any physical law.  That is to say, even if the laws of physics were other than what they are, these quantities would not be affected.  These quantities are in fact simply “put in” as boundary conditions upon which the physical laws of nature operate.  For example, we have the amount of entropy, or the measurement of “disorder” in the universe, as well as its density and initial speed of expansion (“Teleological Argument”).  Even if there were a sort of “theory of everything” which was able to unify the various laws of nature into one explanation, the need for the fine-tuning with respect to these fundamental arbitrary quantities would remain (“Teleological Argument”).

Even still, any “theory of everything” with the complex ability to unite the physical constants could itself be seen as a supreme instance of fine-tuning (“Teleological Argument”).  For example, the most plausible candidate for such a unified theory is known as string theory, which postulates all of nature is reducible to tiny, vibrating strings.  However, scientists have concluded this theory can only work in a world composed of exactly eleven dimensions (“Teleological Argument Pt. 2”).  Thus, although string theory explains certain instances of fine-tuning, by invoking it we automatically incur a need for a new kind of geometrical fine-tuning.  Therefore, the idea of the universe’s fine-tuning being explained by physical necessity is not only implausible on its face but also severely lacking in support from scientific evidence.

A second possible and perhaps more common explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe is that of chance.  This view posits the various constants and quantities in the universe simply happen by sheer accident to be within the infinitesimally microscopic range of permitting life.  Initially, the problem with this is the odds against a life-permitting universe forming by chance alone are so incomprehensibly great they cannot be reasonably faced.  While it is true anything is possible, the philosopher ought to be concerned not with possibility but with reasonability; we ought to determine what is the most reasonable inference from the evidence.

Furthermore, this problem cannot be overcome by the atheist who claims improbabilities happen.  While this is certainly true, there is a factor at play here beyond sheer improbability that makes the chance explanation so implausible.  The universe’s fine tuning does not only possess improbability, but specified improbability.  It conforms to an independently given pattern, namely, that which permits the existence of intelligent human life (“Teleological Argument Pt. 1”).

To illustrate, imagine finding a chimpanzee typing away at a computer.  Upon approaching further, you find mere gibberish on the screen and rightly do not conclude the random string of letters is the result of any sort of intelligent design.  Suppose, however, upon entering you found the chimp was actually typing out one of Shakespeare’s sonnets.  At that point you would be reasonable to conclude there was some sort of intelligence involved, even though the two strings of letters produced were equally as improbable (“Teleological Argument Pt. 2”).  The difference lies in whether an improbability is specified, and in the case of the universe, the fact intelligent life is permitted entails specificity.  In other words, our universe isn’t just any old universe; rather, it is one that allows for intelligent human life.

One way the atheist could surmount this difficulty is with what is known as the anthropic principle, which posits we ought to not be surprised to observe a life-permitting universe, since if the universe were not finely tuned, we would not be here to be surprised about it (“Teleological Argument Pt. 2”).  While it is true we should not be surprised not to observe conditions which are incompatible with our existence, it would be a leap of logic to then assert we ought not to be surprised to observe conditions which are compatible with our existence.  The statement simply does not follow logically.

To illustrate, consider a second scenario in which one is brought before a group of 100 trained marksmen who each aim to shoot him.  If each one missed, he would not be justified in saying “I guess I shouldn’t be surprised to be alive!  After all, if I had been shot, I wouldn’t be here to be surprised!” (“Teleological Argument Pt. 3”).  Rather, a proper response would entail surprise at the fact of the enormous improbability of each of the marksmen missing their target.  Such is the case with the universe.  We are justified in being surprised at our own existence because of the vast improbability of a life-permitting universe.

However, an emerging metaphysical hypothesis has added a twist to the analogy of the trained marksmen in an effort to refute the theory of design.  Imagine that same scenario, only with the addition when one opens his eyes to see he is alive, he discovers there are 100 other people lying dead around him.  He is no longer surprised to see himself alive, he simply considers himself lucky to have been the one who, by chance alone, was not shot (“Teleological Argument Pt. 3”).  This is what is being propounded by what many call the theory of “the world ensemble” or the multiverse.  The idea is by positing an extremely high or infinite number of universes, by chance alone there would happen to be a universe that would “survive the shooting of the marksmen” and overcome the vast improbability to permit intelligent life.  However, there are three key reasons why the theory of the multiverse is unsuccessful in removing the need for a designer.

If we apply here the methodological principle known as Ockham’s razor, which states causes ought not to be posited beyond necessity, the design theory is a better explanation because it is simpler.  It seems a more reasonable reaction to attribute fine-tuning to a fine-tuner, rather than mere chance.  To posit an infinite number of universes simply in an effort to explain away the fine-tuning of our particular universe rather than simply choose belief in God is to posit a more complex cause than is necessary.

One would never make this sort of inference to chance in daily life.  If while walking alone the beach, one found a watch in the sand, he would be much more likely to attribute it to some sort of intelligence than to shout, “I shouldn’t be surprised to find this!  After all, in this infinite multiverse of ours, there’s bound to be some universe in which this watch assembles through natural processes!”  Clearly, the design hypothesis is a better explanation when judging on the criterion of simplicity propounded by Ockham’s razor.

In response to this, the atheist may point out the idea of a maximally great being entails great complexity.  While it is true that God, if he exists, is certainly a complex sort of being, that is very different from stating he is a complex explanation.  For example, in the scenario of finding a watch, it would be a simpler explanation to attribute it to a human rather than mere chance, even though the actual human being is extremely complex.

In addition, positing a multiverse as an explanation for fine-tuning does not advance our understanding of the world and our place within it the same way the design hypothesis does.  We cannot understand much more about our universe by simply asserting it to be the product of mere chance in a world ensemble of universes.  However, the design hypothesis could reveal to us great understanding about the meaning and purpose of our universe.

Secondly, there is simply no empirical evidence for the multiverse theory.  It is no more “scientific” than the design theory (“Teleological Argument Pt. 3”).  In fact, it is not even the sort of thing that could ever possibly be empirically proven.  Science, for all its capabilities, simply by definition cannot reach beyond the boundaries of our universe.  However, a key difference between the two theories lies in the fact while there is independent evidence for the existence of a divine designer, such as the cosmological and ontological arguments, there is nothing but sheer guesswork to support the existence of the multiverse.  Again, it is the task of the philosopher not to confuse himself with every possible explanation, but to determine what is the most reasonable inference.  From a strictly evidential point of view, the design hypothesis is a better explanation.

Finally, even if the existence of the multiverse could somehow be proven, it still would not alleviate the need for a fine-tuner.  One of the most compelling examples of this “wider teleology” sort of fine-tuning is the constant for the rate of expansion of matter (“Teleological Argument”), which would still be in play even given a multiverse.  Thus, attempts to explain the multiverse do not get rid of fine-tuning, they merely push it further back.

After ruling out the possible explanations of physical necessity and chance to explain the fine-tuning of the universe, there is only one option left: design.  One may not always be pleased with where the evidence leads, but in order to maintain intellectual honesty, he must follow it.  The sheer complexity and intricacy of the physical constants and arbitrary quantities of our universe cry out for an explanation that atheism cannot reasonably satisfy.  We must go where the evidence leads us, therefore, and conclude that belief in the existence of God is justified by this argument.

Works Cited

Craig, Dr. William Lane. “The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle”. Leader.com. N.p., 8 November 2005. Web. 11 October 2012.

—. “The Teleological Argument (Pt. 1).” The Defenders Podcast. 23 September 2007. Reasonable Faith. 11 October 2012.

—. “The Teleological Argument (Pt. 2).” The Defenders Podcast. 1 October 2007. Reasonable Faith. 1 October 2012.

—. “The Teleological Argument (Pt. 3).” The Defenders Podcast. 8 October 2007. Reasonable Faith. 11 October 2012.

Lennox, James. “Darwin Was a Teleologist.” Faculty.arts.ubc.ca. N.p, N.d. Web. 11 October 2012.

Oakes, Edward. “Briefly Noted 56.” Firstthings.com. N.p., October 2003. Web. 11 October 2012.

Contemporary French Secularism and the French Revolution

Leave a reply

Audrey Livingstone

Imagine, if you will, living in a time in which your country’s governmental and political systems are completely void of stability.  Imagine living in fear of a bloodbath taking place a block away from your home.  Imagine a man rising to power who beheads a man, woman, or child at the snap of a finger.  Imagine living in a society in which almost anything can be justified under the guise of pursuing liberty, equality, fraternity; imagine living in complete and utter chaos.  Millions of French people experienced these things daily throughout the French Revolution. This was perhaps the darkest period of French history, and its effects linger in society today.

The following information is based off of historian Robert Wilde’s summary of the French Revolution.  The French Revolution is one of the most widely recognized historical events to ever have taken place.  Its most crucial events occurred between the years 1789 and 1802, when the country was wracked with political and social turmoil.  The absolutist monarchy was under attack by those who wished to transform it into a Republic, and all the uprising caused riffs among the French people.  Originally brought upon by financial crisis in France, the beginning of the Revolution is traced back to May 5, 1789, when the États-Généraux, or the General Assembly, gathered for the first time since 1614.

Louis XVI called the Assembly, which was composed of three different estates.  The first was the clergy, the second the nobility, and the third the general public.  This was done in order to assess the country’s financial situation and form solutions to whatever issues were identified.  However, instead of coming to a unanimous agreement on what was to be done, the Assembly fell to pieces.  After having been locked out of a meeting, the third estate met in an indoor tennis court and took the Tennis Court Oath, vowing “never to separate till they had done something” (Bunker Hill Monument Association 50).  The third estate then overtook the General Assembly and declared itself a National Assembly.  The king, who wished to avoid more of a power struggle than had already taken place, gave the Assembly power.  It then suspended tax laws and began reforming France.

As the Old Regime (or Ancien Régime) fell, the National Assembly formed the Legislative Assembly, who drew up a new Constitution.  Unfortunately, the Legislative Assembly also took it upon themselves to legislate against the church and turn against any who supported the king and his monarchy.  As the changes brought upon by the National and Legislative Assemblies became more drastic, the Revolution changed direction in 1792.

The National Assembly was replaced by the National Convention, who officially abolished the monarchy and, a year later in 1793, executed the king (Louis XVI).  After his execution, France was declared a Republic and was then plunged into one of the bloodiest and most terrifying parts of the period: the Terror.  Spearheaded by Robespierre, the Reign of Terror was a period in which anyone noble, anyone related to the monarchy, was sent to the guillotine.  Nearly a year later, after tens of thousands of deaths, the people turned against Robespierre and those who aided him in leading the Terror.  Robespierre was himself sent to the guillotine, and the Reign of Terror came to an end.

A new constitution was then drawn up.  This constitution put five men, labeled as the Directory, in charge of the country.  However, due to election rigging and political corruption, the Directory became quite a dishonest affair.  Napoleon Bonaparte became involved in the Directory, and he ended up bringing the Revolutionary Wars to a close as well as having himself declared consul for life (sole leader of France).  In 1804, he declared himself Emperor; the Revolution had ended, and France had become an empire.

Since the focus of my thesis is showing how the Revolution is still alive today, I will not be surveying French history from the Revolution to now.  I would now like to define a few terms I will be using throughout my thesis: secularism; the Revolution’s slogan “liberté, égalité, fraternité”; and contemporary France.  According to Princeton’s WordNet, secularism is “rejection of religion and religious considerations.”  The phrase “liberté, égalité, fraternité” served as the Revolution’s slogan; though many people are aware of its meaning, I will define it for the sake of clarity. In English, it translates to “liberty, equality, fraternity.”  I will also consistently refer to contemporary France throughout my thesis.  What I mean by “contemporary” is anywhere from the 1950s to the present.

All of this being said, you may be wondering why my thesis is important.  Understanding history, the events which lead up to and formed our modern world, is extremely important.  Specifically in regard to understanding modern Europe and its secular nature, revolutions are extremely important.  Identifying French secularism and analyzing its origins and growth helps us to better understand the France we see today, which tends to be at the forefront of international affairs and issues.

In order to prove my thesis, that contemporary French secularism was inaugurated by the French Revolution, I will prove French secularism manifests in government, the country’s religious climate, and its attitude toward sexuality; and I will show how these things resulted from the Revolution.  In addition, I will refute two counterarguments.  I will dispel the ideas France is more religious than secular (specifically regarding Muslims and Catholics), and the Revolution has been made redundant regarding secularism.

My first proof to confirm my thesis is French secularism manifests today in French government.  Nothing has happened in the past several hundred years since the Revolution to demonstratively change the secular political climate in France.  This is specifically evident in the most recent election.  In 2012, Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidential term ended, and elections took place in late April.  Unfortunately, Sarkozy’s conservative values were not as popular among the people as those of socialist candidate Francois Hollande, who won the popular vote.

Sarkozy was one of the most right-wing and conservative presidents France has seen, and, according to Tony Cross of the RFI (Radio France Internationale), a large part of his election was “his promise to ‘modernise’ [sic] the French economy” (par. 3).  Even though he was conservative in the eyes of the French, he was still rather secular, seeing as his platform was to modernize the country.  Unfortunately, during his office, he began to lose popularity.  Perhaps the most decisive factor in his loss to Hollande was difficulty he encountered in leading the country through its economic crisis (par. 12).  BBC’s Schofield says, “By the left he was despised as the uncultured friend of the rich; by the far right as the man who broke his word; by liberals as the president who began to reform then stopped” (par. 9).  It was not only the economic crisis that brought Sarkozy out of his presidency, though; the French were looking for someone more liberal and more secular, and this is where Hollande comes in.

As the French grew increasingly unhappy with Sarkozy’s leadership, Hollande seized his opportunity to gain popularity and secure a win for the socialist party.  He nearly came from out of the blue into the running for the socialist party when Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the original socialist candidate, was caught in a sex scandal.  Hollande’s slogan “Le changement, c’est maintenant” (“change is now”) brought assurance to the French people he would handle things differently if they put him in l’Élysée (the French equivalent of the White House).

Several of Hollande’s most widely-embraced campaign pedestals display the secularism that has rooted itself in French society since the Revolution.  He is the quintessential socialist.  This is seen in his plans for tax reform, his desire to legalize gay marriage, and his openness concerning his agnostic beliefs.  Hollande, in typical socialist fashion, hopes to redistribute wealth.  He wants to raise taxes for those he deems rich while simultaneously lowering taxes for the middle and lower classes.  He promises he will enforce a 75% income tax on those who earn 1 million or more euros per annum.  Taking more money from the upper class gives him more room to benefit those with less, he says (“Q&A” 1).

He also hopes to legalize gay marriage.  As evidenced by many intense protests occurring in the streets of France, it is an issue that has impassioned many of the French.  The issue has and continues to cause divisions throughout the country, due to the tenacious nature of the “conservative” part of the French population.  These “conservatives,” however, are really quite secular in their own right.  They are not against the idea of gay marriage because it violates religious beliefs; they are against it because it violates their idea of a traditional family: a husband, wife, and children.  Despite these protests, Hollande remains steadfast in his belief it ought to be legalized.  He also supports the legalization of gay couples’ ability to adopt.  The people cry the government passing these laws (a higher income tax for the rich, legalization of gay marriage, and legalization of adoption for gay couples) is a manifestation of true equality among all French citizens.  Not so ironically, equality was one of the main cries of the Revolution (liberté, égalité, fraternité).  The modern demand for equality takes a bit of a different shape than it did during the Revolution. During the 1700s and 1800s, it was more so directed toward the unfairness of so large a social gap between noblemen and the clergy and the common people rather than gay marriage being equal to heterosexual marriage.  Despite the practical differences, the spirit of the cry remains the same.  The French, as they did so long ago, desire complete equality among themselves, even with the presence of the conservatives, who are themselves still secular.

In addition to these government reforms, France elected an openly agnostic man.  Hollande says, “J’ai longtemps été agnostique, désormais mes doutes se sont transformés en certitudes,” (“I have been agnostic for a long time, and henceforth my doubts have become certainties”) (“Dieu” par. 3).  Had the spirit of secularism died with the Revolution, the French would certainly not have been so open to electing this man as their president.  The beliefs of a people are reflected in who they choose to lead them.  So, it is clear France remains secular in their election of the socialist Francois Hollande and in their support of his secular governmental reforms.

My second argument regarding my thesis is French secularism is evident in the current religious climate in France.  As James Leith explains in Culture and Revolution, “The major symbols that played an important role in the Revolution often took on a religious aura” (174).  What is interesting about this, however, is this “religious aura” merely denotes the fact religious symbols were taken and transformed into secular Revolutionary symbols.

For instance, la Montagne (the Mountain) became an important Revolutionary symbol after radical Jacobians, who had a great deal of influence in the Convention and Committee of Public Safety, took this phrase on as a nickname (174).  Mountains have very important representations in Christianity, e.g. Mount Sinai where God revealed the Ten Commandments to Moses, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, and the mountain as the kingdom of God in Daniel 2.  However, during the Revolution, a mountain became something very different from its originally generally-accepted religious connotation.  Leith says, “At the peak of the Revolution, symbolic mountains appeared repeatedly on engravings … or were constructed on festival grounds.  Often orators emphasized that they represented the holy Mountain from which leadership and enlightenment radiated through the Republic” (176).

This trend continued throughout the Revolution with other religious symbols, such as the equilateral triangle, which was normally used to represent the Trinity.  It took on a new meaning as tri-part slogans such as “liberté, égalité, fraternité” and “la nation, la loi, le roi” (the nation, the law, the king) appeared.  It was also used as a symbol for the cult of the Supreme Being, which was a Revolutionary movement and a symbol of “the sanctity of Republican legislation” (176).  The cult of the Supreme Being became prominent around the time during which the Reign of Terror began.  Now, a cult being somewhat prominent may seem to contradict my thesis a bit, so I would like to clarify this.

The cult of the Supreme Being was a tool used by Robespierre to further his political agenda, which was to wipe out the nobility.  In 1794, on the day of the Festival of the Supreme Being, he said,

The eternally happy day which the French people consecrates to the Supreme Being has finally arrived.  Never has the world he created offered him a sight so worthy of his eyes.  He has seen tyranny, crime, and deception reign on earth.  At this moment, he sees an entire nation, at war with all the oppressors of the human race, suspend its heroic efforts in order to raise its thoughts and vows to the Great Being who gave it the mission to undertake these efforts and the strength to execute them.

Did not his immortal hand, by engraving in the hearts of men the code of justice and equality, write there the death sentence of tyrants?  Did not his voice, at the very beginning of time, decree the republic, making liberty, good faith, and justice the order of the day for all centuries and for all peoples?

He did not create kings to devour the human species.  Neither did he create priests to harness us like brute beasts to the carriages of kings, and to give the world the example of baseness, pride, perfidy, avarice, debauchery, and falsehood to the world.  But he created the universe to celebrate his power; he created men to help and to love one another, and to attain happiness through the path of virtue.

The Author of Nature linked all mortals together in an immense chain of love and happiness.  Perish the tyrants who have dared to break it!

Frenchmen, Republicans, it is up to you to cleanse the earth they have sullied and to restore the justice they have banished from it.  Liberty and virtue issued together from the breast of the Supreme Being.  One cannot reside among men without the other.

Generous people, do you want to triumph over all your enemies?  Practice justice and render to the Supreme Being the only form of worship worthy of him.  People, let us surrender ourselves today, under his auspices, to the just ecstasy of pure joy.  Tomorrow we shall again combat vices and tyrants; we shall give the world an example of republican virtues: and that shall honor the Supreme Being more (“Religion” 1).

As you can see from Robespierre’s words, this was a way to manipulate the people and accomplish his Revolutionary agenda.  He created the cult himself at the beginning of the Terror and when he died, the cult ended a mere few months after it began.  So, it was a short-lived, political-agenda-ridden movement that ended up being firmly rejected by the people.

But perhaps one of the most outright ways in which we see religious symbols taken for secular purposes is the use of hymns, which used to be written only inside the church for worship, to encapsulate the spirit of the Revolution.  For example:

O Liberté, Liberté sainte !

Déesse d’un peuple éclairé !

Règne aujourd’hui dans cette enceinte,

Par toi ce temple est épuré !

Liberté ! devant toi, la raison

chasse l’imposture ; l’erreur s’en fuit, le

fanaticisme est

abattu,

Notre évangile est la nature,

Et notre culte est la vertu (180).

O Liberty, holy Liberty!

Goddess of a knowledgeable people!

Reigns today in this house,

This temple is purified by you!

Liberty!  Before you, reason

Hunts deception; error flees,

Fanaticism is

Demolished,

Our gospel is nature,

And our religion is virtue.

These religious symbols stolen for secular use display the people’s rejection of the church and Christian faith, which has been passed down to modern-day France.

Additionally, Roman Catholicism was a state religion before the Revolution, during which the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen was drawn up.  It declared every man had the right to freedom of religion (which was more so freedom from religion, as the people rejected the idea of any state religion) and freedom of thought.  A recent re-manifestation of this is the 1905 French Law on the Separation of Church and State, which cemented the public’s desire to be a secular society, not bound by religion.  The French Enlightenment played a large part in instilling this desire in the common man.  “The idea of separating the churches and the state was defended by many intellectuals and politicians, and came to prevail against the counter-revolutionary and anti-republican attitude of the Catholic Church” (“The Law of 1905” par. 1).  France carries the spirit of the Revolution with them by continuing to diminish the importance of the Church and religion as a whole.

My third and final argument pertains to the modern attitude toward sexuality in France.  The stereotype of the French being one of the most sex-mad populations in existence seems a bit silly sometimes, but it’s true.  While open sexual immorality certainly isn’t uncommon in today’s world (we see it nearly everywhere nowadays), it is more potent in French society.  “Just look at the things that reflect their cultural mindset,” like art and advertising (e.g. in magazines, the metro).  France has never had the religious influence or restriction that other countries have had, like America had with the Great Awakening” (Cochrane, personal interview).  As a people, the French’s inclination toward exaggerated openness concerning sexuality continues to rise (especially in women) and can be traced back to the Revolution.

During the Revolutionary period, liberté (alongside égalité and fraternité) was something the people felt they were deprived of and strived for desperately.  It was fuel to the fire that was the Revolution.  Liberty brought everyone together because it was a common interest; it was what drew those who opposed the monarchy against it in the first place.  For years, they became a restless people, fighting ideologically against any restraints placed on them.  As seen during the Reign of Terror under the leadership of Robespierre, they were willing to take drastic measures to be a free people.  Hundreds of years later, liberty takes on a different connotation.

Though governmental freedom was eventually achieved years after the storming of the Bastille, the desire for liberty did not fade.  It continues to be extremely valuable in French society.  The continuation of this emphasis on liberty and freedom is especially visible in the realm of sexual mores.  This is certainly not difficult to see.  For instance, upon a simple scroll through the French subgenre of foreign films on Netflix or glance at movie advertisements in the Metro, one will find modern French movies raunchy at the least.  A couple of these include Chroniques sexuelles d’une famille d’aujourd’hui (Sexual Chronicles of a French family), L’apollonide : Souvenirs de la Maison Close (House of Pleasures), and Cliente (the Client).  Elaine Sciolino of the New York Times writes “you have images in the Métro of a woman paying for sex who could be the middle-aged woman next door, and a single pregnant Muslim justice minister and no one seems to care” (par. 11).

Though we find ourselves hundreds of years past the Revolution, the desire for liberté remains central to French society.  Sexual liberty is not only something the French pursue; they are proud of it.  In May of 1968, a revolution began whose slogan “pleasure without obstruction” can still be seen in French life today, as “both the number of partners and diversity of sexual activity has significantly increased in France in the last decade” (Crumley par. 2).  The French have not only deservedly earned the title of a very sexual people; they continue to further it.

I would now like to address two counterarguments that attempt to disprove my thesis.  The first is France is more religious than secular because the Muslim population has grown so much recently and is taking over the country.  Soeren Kern, a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Gateway Institute, states Islam is growing at a rapid rate in France and is indeed taking over the country (par. 3).  He says this is seen through the increase of construction of mosques (there are now more than 2,000) throughout the country, in addition to the fact France has the largest European Muslim community.

What Kern (and many of the French) fail to realize, however, is while the amount of nominal Muslims may be in the millions, the amount of those who actually practice the religion is far smaller.  Out of the 75 percent who claim to be Islamic, a mere 3.8 percent of the French population practices Islam (Kerr par. 2, 3).  While Islam appears to be taking over France, it is just that: an appearance.  This shows though many claim to be religious, secularism remains prominent.

In addition, the French government and general population have been actively pursuing a decrease in religious rights for Muslims.  In September of 2004, the French government (under Nicholas Sarkozy) passed a law prohibiting female Muslims from wearing headscarves to school.  The law banned other religious symbols (such as large Christian crosses and Jewish yarmulkes) from being brought into schools as well.  So, even though Islam seems to be growing, secularism remains very much active in French society and cultural life.

The second counterargument to my thesis is the general idea a part of history that occurred so many hundreds of years ago and that was so exaggerated and bloody compared to the political/governmental reforms we see now could not have such a deep impact on modern society.  Many are under the impression because all countries go through ebbs and flows and undergo different movements, one state of mind does not necessarily stay embedded in the culture long after.  This, however, is not the case with French secularism.

France prides itself on being a secular state and on having no state religion or even practiced majority religion.  The government protects that.  The people value it.  They believe it to be a good thing.  On December 9, 1905, the law that separates church and state was passed.  According to the Musée Virtuelle du Protestantisme Français (Virtual Museum of French Protestantism), “Today within the European Union, the 1905 law is a French peculiarity.  In other countries the churches are not strictly limited to the domain of worship, but are also allowed to carry out social activities.”  The French wanted to be secure in the knowledge that they would not be subjected to any religion, and this law did exactly that.  We can see that though the Revolution is certainly technically well in the past, having occurred several hundred years ago, its ideas are still present.  They are still being acted on legally and societally, like with the previously mentioned laws against Muslims.

To say the Revolution does not affect the modern French mind relays a lack of understanding of the true modern French mind.  One sees, for example, when surveying the religious atmosphere of the country, that separation of church and state does not imply freedom of religion, as it does, for example, in the United States of America.  It is technically there, yes.  A French citizen is free to claim any religion.  But to practice it and be overt with it raises many hackles, which is a clear sign of the presence of secularism.

All said and done, hopefully you can now clearly see the secularism that lies in French culture today.  It manifests in government, and many different aspects of popular culture (e.g. music, art, advertisements).  While it is true secularism is all around us, inescapable, if you will, evident in some way in every society, the current situation in France can be clearly traced back to the Revolution.  This sets French secularism apart from what we see in the rest of the world today.  Though the Reign of Terror has passed and the guillotine comes in different forms, the spirit of Robespierre and the revolutionaries lives on.

Works Cited

Bunker Hill Monument Association. Proceedings of the Bunker Hill Monument Association at the Annual Meeting. Concord: The Rumford Press, 1914. Print.

Cochrane, Maria. Personal interview. 26 March 2013.

Cross, Tony. “Why did Sarkozy lose the French presidential election?” Radio France Internationale. Radio France Internationale Online. 15 February 2013. Web. 8 May 2012.

Crumley, Bruce. “More Sex Please, We’re French.” Time. Time Online. 7 March 2008. Web. 23 May 2013.

Dive, Bruno. “Election présidentielle: et Dieu dans tout ça ?” Sudouest. Sudouest Online. 15 February 2013. Web. 8 April 2012.

Kern, Soeren. “Islam Overtaking Catholicism in France.” Gatestone Institute: International Policy Council. Gatestone Institute Online. 18 Aug. 2011. Web. 23 Jan. 2013.

Kerr, David. “Islam set to be dominant religion in France.” Catholic News Agency. Catholic News Agency Online. 17 Sept. 2011. Web. 23 Jan. 2013.

“The Law of 1905.” Musée Virtuel du Protestantisme Français. Musée Virtuel du Protestantisme Français Online. 22 Jan. 2013. Web.

Leith, James and George Levitine. Culture and Revolution: Cultural Ramifications of the French Revolution. University of Maryland at College Park: Department of Art History. 1989. Print.

“Q & A: Sarkozy’s and Hollande’s plans for France.” BBC News Europe. BBC News Online. 3 May 2012. Web. 15 Feb. 2013.

“Religion: The Cult of the Supreme Being.” Rory Rosenzweig Center for History and New

Media. Rory Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media Online. N.d. Web. 26 March 2013.

Schofield, Hugh. “France election: How François Hollande won.” BBC News Europe. BBC News Online. 15 February 2013. Web. 6 May 2012.

Sciolino, Elaine. “France. Sex. Problem?” The New York Times. The New York Times Online. 29 October 2008. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.

“Secularism.” WordNet. Princeton University. N.d. Web. 23 March 2013.

Wile, Robert. “French Revolution 101.” About.com. About.com Online. 8 February 2013. Web.

Abortion Cannot Be Justified

Leave a reply

Kaitlyn Thornton Abbott

A nurse sits in a back room, looking at a baby.  The baby’s seventeen-year-old mother rests in the recovery room.  The nurse empties the contents of the suctioning tube into a bucket and onto the table.  She counts one head, a whole torso, two arms, two legs, ten fingers, and ten toes.  She sees thousands of babies like this a year; babies who were too young to die.  Suddenly, she bursts into tears.  This time it was too much.  She saw the eyelids, the nose; all she could imagine was her own infant at home, sucking on his thumb.  “How is this one any different?” she wonders to herself.  Slowly, she gets herself together and goes back into the operation room and nods at the doctor, signifying everything was accounted for.

This may seem like a made up story, but this is the testimony of a former abortion clinic worker (Meyers 2).  This woman knew the unborn fetus, what the doctors like to call a “clump of tissue,” was an actual human child.  She knew what they were doing was wrong.  This woman knew what my thesis is here to prove.  Abortion cannot be justified, morally or medically, because the fetus is human, very much alive from the moment of conception.

The question “when does life begin?” has echoed across the generations, and each generation takes its turn trying to answer that question.  The problem was, and still is, they ask themselves the wrong question.  The question, “when does life begin?” is inherently flawed.  Life doesn’t begin; it began.  Life began once, at Creation.  The question that needs to be answered is “when does each human fetus gain the status of being biologically alive?”  There is no question: the fetus is human; a human being is a member of Homo sapiens.  When humans reproduce, a monkey is not created, nor is a turtle, nor is any non-human entity; the fetus growing inside the mother’s womb is biologically human.  The question drawn from this understanding is if it is human, is it alive?  And if it is alive, is it a person?  Because the answers to those questions are, yes, the fetus is alive, and yes, it is a person, you will see through my thesis abortion cannot be justified morally or medically.

Abortion is a word thrown around, with a general understanding of the idea.  The concrete definition of abortion, however, is “the deliberate termination of one’s pregnancy.”  The terms going to be associated with this thesis are as follows: morally, justified, life, individual, viability, gestational, and living.  Morally means “in relation to standards of good and bad character or conduct.”  Justified means “having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.”  Personhood is defined as “the quality or condition of being an individual person.”  Viability is “having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother’s womb.”  Gestational is “the period of development in the uterus from conception until birth.”  Also, individual is defined as “a single human being distinct from any other human.”  Merriam Webster defines life as “an opportunity for continued viability,” but speaking from a medical perspective life is defined as “the energy that enables organisms to grow, reproduce, absorb and use nutrients, and evolve, and, in some organisms, to achieve mobility, express consciousness, and demonstrate a voluntary use of the senses.”  The five criteria all organisms must meet to be declared “living” are having highly organized systems, having an ability to acquire materials and energy, having an ability to respond to their environment, having the ability to reproduce, and having the ability to adapt (Stone 2).  Although fetuses may not have the ability to reproduce in the sense of offspring, they reproduce in the sense the cells divide to reproduce more cells to allow the fetus to continue to grow and develop.

The idea of terminating one’s pregnancy dates back to ancient cultures.  Many methods early cultures practiced were non-surgical.  The earliest written record of an abortion was found in the Ebers Papyrus, an ancient medical text drawn from records that date back as early as the third millennium B.C.  The Ebers Papyrus says an abortion can be induced through an herbal tampon, which was the most common practice.  The Egyptian recipe is based on acacia berries and it specifically states that it can stop a pregnancy at any time (“History of Abortion” 2).

Not only was it done in the world of the Egyptians, but it was also a common practice in China.  Folklore speaks of it (mercury potions were said to be used) and royal concubines were documented to have abortions as early as 515 B.C.  They, like the Egyptians, understood the basic concept of activeness during pregnancy.  For example, they realized any action that could result in a miscarriage could be done on purpose to achieve the same result.  Hard rubbing or massage on the uterus, riding a horse, and heavy lifting were all common practices of removing an unwanted pregnancy.  Unwanted pregnancies happened for a variety of reasons, just as they do today; however, these reasons usually stemmed from economic problems and famine.  Other Asian observations, such as Japanese texts, state there were shrines dedicated to the lost and aborted babies.

The Ancient Greeks also practiced abortion and quite commonly, too.  For example, Soranus, a second-century Greek physician, was a strong advocate for abortion, but only in the cases of woman’s health and emotional immaturity.  His methods were said to cause the woman no harm, and all that would physically happen was a miscarriage.  His methods included fasting, bloodletting, energetic walking, riding animals, and jumping so one’s feet hit one’s butt.  He highly disagreed to the use of sharp instruments to terminate a pregnancy due to the risk of harming the woman by perforating her organs (Merino 26).

One of the most extreme methods of abortion during the medieval period was a surgical practice called embryotomy.  Simply put, this was the removing of a dead or alive fetus from the mother’s womb.  This was a fairly common practice whenever complications appeared, and some archaeological discoveries point in this direction.  For example, a decapitated infant with other multiple mutilations found at a gravesite in Dorset buried without the mother shows she probably survived after undergoing an embryotomy, based upon the mutilation of her baby (45).

Abortion dates back to ancient cultures, and the procedures were just as harmful then as they are today.  Abortion is argued it is a woman’s choice, but abortion was tried as a crime in the ancient cultures.  They believed a woman who had an abortion not sanctioned by her husband was undermining his authority and was punishable by death (47).  In many cultures it was not legalized; however, many spoke out against the illegality of it, pushing for changes in the law, based upon the presumption of women’s health.  The issue of legality remained prevalent until 1973 in the case of Roe v. Wade when abortion upon demand was legalized with the defense of “women’s choice.”  Today, 1.21 million abortions occur annually, with nine abortions every four minutes, and one abortion every twenty-six seconds in the United States.

In order to prove my thesis, that abortion cannot be justified medically or morally, I will prove abortion cannot be justified medically because life begins at conception, and I will prove abortion cannot be justified morally because the fetus is alive, and abortion is unjust, and since our society is founded on justice, it is not right.  I will also be refuting three counter arguments to my thesis: it is a woman’s choice to do what she pleases with her own body and her reproductive rights should not be infringed upon, the fetus is not a living entity, and in the case of rape or incest, all abortions are just.

My first point is life begins at conception. Keith Moore explains in his book Essentials of Human Embryology

Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).  Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm with a secondary oocyte and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell.  This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being (6).

The size of that zygote when first formed is smaller than your fingernail, but the size of the fetus cannot be a determining factor in whether or not the fetus is alive (9).  The embryonic stage is merely that — a stage in development, just as puberty and menopause are stages in development people hit as they age.  Just because someone hasn’t hit puberty doesn’t mean he’s any less of a person than an eighteen-year-old.  In the same way, just because the fetus isn’t fully grown yet, doesn’t mean it isn’t alive and it isn’t a person.  The stage of development is not a deciding factor in whether the fetus is alive or not.  The deciding factor which determines whether life begins at conception is the biological standards all living things must meet, which are having highly organized systems, an ability to acquire materials and energy, an ability to respond to their environment, the ability to reproduce, and the ability to adapt.  The systems the fetus has are exceptionally organized; they have all of the systems you and I do, only less developed, depending on gestational age.  The fetus acquires energy from the mother and continues to grow; the fetus also responds to the mother’s and father’s voices and music.  The fetus may not be able to reproduce in the sense of offspring, but the cells that make up the fetus are continuously reproducing and multiplying, which grows the fetus.  The fetus also can adapt to environments, such as a petri dish to the mother’s womb.

For my second point, I will prove abortion cannot be justified morally.  A federal law in America is not to kill.  If something is alive, then it can be killed.  Being alive means to “continue in existence.”  A fetus will continue on in existence until it is born, if left alone.  People will claim because a fetus is dependent on another human being, not only for nutrients but for simple existence, then they are not to be considered as people.  In today’s world of medicine and technology, however, doctors are able to keep humans existing through the use of respirators and dialysis machines; dependency on a machine or another human can’t determine personhood or lack thereof.  A person is no different from a human and can be defined as such.  Merriam Webster states a person is “a human being, that which is regarded as an individual.”  Every fetus, from the moment of conception, is biologically alive.  The heartbeat that can be heard, the brainwaves that can be measured, and kicks that can be felt are signs of a living human being.  Illegality is formed based off of morality.  Something is made illegal because it infringes upon the rights of another person.  The fetus meets the requirements that fit the definition of a living entity, and therefore it is immoral to abort a fetus.

Justice is a main foundation of our society, and justice is founded upon equality and the value of human rights (Meyers 35).  Justice also proceeds on the idea if there is a clash of rights, then, the right that does the least harm will be the most just.  Injustice is the infringement of any basic human right.  Justice is also a consequence of choices.  The mother and the father were the ones who made the decision to be in a sexually active relationship, and sometimes becoming pregnant is a consequence of that.  That doesn’t mean the child should be the one being punished.  To punish the child for existing is morally wrong because the child cannot help the fact his or her parents had sex and created a baby.  The mother and father are the ones who are responsible for their choices, not the child.  And therefore, it is just to require the mother to bear the weight of her greater responsibility in the circumstance and not require the ultimate price of the child who bore no responsibility for existing at all.

The Declaration of Independence says each American has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness because these are innate rights, endowed by our Creator.  The right to life means every human has the right to be born.  No human can take that away from another human.  For us to be under the presumption embryonic fetuses are not human denies one of the simplest biological truths: fetuses are just as human as you or I.  There is no scientific way to deny the fetus growing inside the womb is not human.

Not only does the Declaration of Independence guarantee each and every human individual, which includes the unborn, the right to life, but the Preamble to the Constitution also touches on the subject of the unborn.  The main aim of the Constitution is to “secure the blessings of liberty for us and our posterity.”  This is in reference to the children of the day, but the Constitution and Declaration were not written simply for the people of the time period.  They were also written for the unborn children of the future and future American citizens — whether they are in the womb or out of it.

The first counter argument against my thesis is “It’s a woman’s choice to do what she pleases with her own body and her reproductive rights should not be infringed upon.”  This argues the woman and the baby are the same individual until birth, the baby growing inside her is not its own person, and no law should be written to tell women how to exert their reproductive rights.  What’s interesting about this argument many self-described pro-choice activists tend to give is it’s not solely the woman’s body.  This argument implies because the fetus is developing inside the woman, and the woman provides the nutrition and oxygen for the fetus, the fetus is a complete part of the woman’s body, and she can do with it as she pleases.  While the counter argument is partially correct in stating the fetus is part of the woman’s body, it is necessary to understand it is not solely the woman’s body; it is still another individual.  Simple anatomy and biology show us a woman has one head, two arms, two legs, ten fingers and toes, one heart, one brain, and one of every system her body needs to survive.  As the fetus starts to develop, more of these body parts start to show themselves and continue to develop.  The genetic codes are also distinctly separate.  Every body part that belongs to a woman has a certain genetic code that matches the rest of her body; the fetus, on the other hand, has a separate code, proving its individuality as a separate biological entity.  If the unborn child had the exact same genetic code as the mother, then it would be only her body; however, its genetic code is half of the mother’s and half of the father’s.  As Randy Alcorn says, “A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his (the child’s) identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides.”  The DNA of a child is the defining factor in distinguishing the child from the mother while the child is still in the womb.

The second part of the argument, “it’s a woman’s choice to do what she pleases with her own body and her reproductive rights should not be infringed upon,” is what I will be refuting next.  The main point of this argument is women have the right to choose.  They argue since it is their bodies, they have the right to do with them what they want.  The problem with this argument is while they do have the right to choose what happens to their bodies, it is not wholly the woman’s body being affected.  The child in the womb is the one being affected more than the mother.  The child’s right to life is being taken from him, and he isn’t given the right to choose whether he exists or not.  The pro-choice side is very correct in saying the woman has the right to choose.  But what they refuse to acknowledge is women make their choice when they choose to engage in sexual activity.  Once they engage in sexual intercourse, they are exercising their reproductive rights; women know they are putting themselves up to the risk of getting pregnant.  Once that right is exercised, and the result is a pregnancy, then their rights end because the right to life supersedes the right to not be pregnant.

The second point I’m going to refute is the unborn is just an embryo or a fetus; it is just a product of conception — a simple blob of tissue, not a baby.  This argument says abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child.  Yes, the “product of conception” is exactly what the opposing side calls it: an embryo, and a fetus.  But those are scientific terms to differentiate between different stages of development for this tiny little human.  Right now it may be an embryo, a few months from now and it’ll be a fetus; give it a few years and she’ll be a toddler, and then a teenager, and so on.  The point here is yes, the pro-choice side is very correct in using the terminology of “fetus” and “embryo,” but that does not mean the fetus is not a person.  Personhood is defined as membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species.  The law has proven a fetus is person.  Thirty-eight states have fetal homicide laws that give fetuses legal rights and protection if killed against the mother’s wishes.  If a fetus is not a person, then it cannot have rights regarding protection, because they wouldn’t be necessary.  But because the law gives the fetus rights, it makes the distinction of two different bodies, which would mean two different persons.  “If both the woman and the child were killed and we can prove the child was killed due to the actions of the perpetrator, then we charge both,” said Stanislaus County Assistant District Attorney Carol Shipley (qtd. on CourtTV).  This gives the child rights and legal status as a person.  An implication within this pro-choice argument is fetuses are considered alive when wanted by the mother, but when the mother does not want the baby, then the fetus returns to being “just a blob of tissue.”  These children are victims of chance.  If the mother does not want her child, then the fetus automatically loses its personhood, and along with it, its rights and legal status.  Logically, this argument does not make sense if the personhood is dependent on circumstance; the child is either alive or it’s not.

The third point I’m going to refute is in the case of rape or incest, all abortions are just.  This argument argues women should not have to face the trauma of carrying the rapist’s child.  However, pregnancies as a result of rape as exceptionally rare (Ginsburg 765).  A statistical study done by the Department of Justice showed there are approximately two hundred thousand rapes committed a year in the United States.  They found through statistical reasoning only 1 out of every five hundred women raped end up becoming pregnant (qtd. in Ginsburg 769).  The prochoice side is right in saying the woman who has been raped experiences emotional and physical trauma.  And that is very true.  The issue with their argument, however, is the woman is under no obligation to keep her rapist’s baby; there are many routes she can take.  For one, the Safe Haven statute all hospitals or police departments fall under will take the child and place it as a ward of the state; the woman is stripped of her right to ever claim that baby as her own, legally (Meyers 62).  Another flaw with the argument is while it is understood pregnancy from rape is traumatic, it does not statistically support the argument for “abortion on demand.”  One in five hundred a year is not enough reason to allow abortion to be justified.  A third flaw with this argument is the fetus is innocent.  The fetus is not the one who deserves to be punished for the rapist’s acts; the fetus is just as innocent as the mother; there doesn’t need to be two victims because of one man’s crime.  Because abortion cannot be justified on the moral and medical grounds of the fetus being fully human and alive, abortion cannot be justified in the case of rape or incest either; emotional distress and trauma does not exceed the right to life.  Sanctity of life cannot be circumstantial.  If it is a life, and is alive at the moment of conception, the doctor, nor the woman can justify killing it because of the way it was conceived.  Rape is extremely emotional and traumatic.  But so is being aborted.

Throughout this thesis, I have proved abortion cannot be justified morally or medically by showing how the biological evidence proves unborn fetuses are living human persons.  I have also refuted the arguments it is a woman’s choice to do what she pleases with her own body and her reproductive rights should not be infringed upon, the fetus is not a living entity, and in the case of rape or incest, all abortions are just.  Since abortion cannot be justified morally or medically, it can be argued it cannot be justified lawfully either; after all, aren’t our laws based off of moral justification?  Abortions kill a living, feeling child.  The child killed within the womb is no different than the child a new mother holds in her arms.  Pope Benedict XVI said it well when he said, “The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right is the right to life itself.  This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end.  Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right — it is the very opposite.  It is a deep wound in society.”  The testimony of the woman who had to count out the aborted baby’s limbs explains through tears what I’ve told you through scientific fact, logical reasoning, and evidence from law: Abortion cannot be justified, morally or medically, because the fetus is human, very much alive from the moment of conception.

Works Cited

“Gestational.” The American Heritage® Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1995. Dictionary.com. Web. 14 January 2013.

Ginsburg, Faye. Contested Lives. California: University of California Press, 1989.

“Justified.” Op. cit.

“Life.” Op. cit.

Merino, Noel. Abortion. Michigan: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Print.

Meyers, Chris. The Fetal Position. New York: Prometheus Books, 2012. Print.

Moore, Keith. Essentials of Human Embryology. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book, 1988. Print.

“Morally.” Op. cit.

National Abortion Federation. “History of Abortion.” National Abortion Federation, 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

Nilsson, Lennart and Lars Hamberger. A Child is Born, 4th ed. New York: Bantum Dell, 2003.

“Personhood.” Op. cit.

Sanger, Alexander. Beyond Choice. New York: Perseus Books Group, 2004.

Stone, Carol Leth. Basics of Biology. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2004. Print.

“Viability.” Op. cit.

Let Me Be Frank about Frank: Or, It’s Nice to be Nice to the Nice

Leave a reply

Christopher Rush

TV’s Franks

As we continue to wend our way down the long and winding road to completion of this journey, it’s about time we paid tribute to some of my favorite loveable TV villains: TV’s Frank from Mystery Science Theater 3000 and Frank Burns from M*A*S*H.  Admittedly, these two rapscallions aren’t always “nice,” in that one is trying to help his boss take over the world by unleashing the worst movie ever made upon an unsuspecting populace and the other is a somewhat hypocritical hypochondriac whose parsimony is surpassed only by his pedantry.  Despite this, these two have given us some unforgettable and highly enjoyable moments from two of TV’s best shows of all time, and it’s time we be nice to them for all they’ve given us.

Push the Button, Frank

TV’s Frank is that remarkable mixture of loveable sidekick and cuddly antagonist few shows ever get right (though many try).  It’s hard at times to remember Dr. Clayton Forrester and TV’s Frank are the villains of the show, considering the more time we spend with them the more we enjoy having them around.  I’ve always thought the better episodes are the ones that have a lot of Dr. Forrester and Frank in them, even if they are being unusually cruel (“Deep hurting!” from experiment #410 Hercules Against the Moon Men) or plotting to get rid of Mike (#512 Mitchell).  Though he’s definitely a sidekick or lackey (dressed as he usually is in a chauffeur outfit) and not a mad scientist (what can one expect from a former Arby’s employee with the nickname “Zeppo”?), Frank holds his own with Dr. F, despite being killed several times (always to be resurrected no later than the next episode) and comes to befriend Joel, Mike, and the ’bots before being assumed to Second-Banana Heaven (though he soon leaves for new adventures).

As a primarily supportive character, even as an antagonist, Frank doesn’t always get a lot of lines, but nearly every episode has Frank give us something memorable (at least something worth the while of watching it) during his tenure in seasons 2 through 6.  Whether he is apathetic toward Dr. F (such as during Clay’s supervillain conference at the end of #504 Secret Agent Super Dragon) or a willing supporter of his schemes (such as cheering on “Proposition: Deep 13” in #621, The Beast of Yucca Flats), Frank provides the gooey, nougatey center the show didn’t have before he arrived.

Is Frank my favorite MST3K character?  It’s hard to say.  Just as I can’t really choose which Collective Soul song is my favorite (which is rather akin to trying to choose which was my favorite slice of pizza I’ve had in my lifetime or which was my favorite DQP with cheese), I can’t really choose which MST3K character is my favorite.  It possibly depends on which episode I am watching at the time.  Some people can choose definitively between Crow and Tom — I’m not one of those people.  I certainly lean more toward Joel than Mike, but that’s more about the movies themselves, not Mike as a character/person.  I prefer Frank to Larry and the Sci-Fi channel episodes, but that isn’t saying all that much.  Every character is necessary, at least in seasons 2-7.  Even Magic Voice.  Similarly, you can’t separate Clayton and Frank — they are a unit.  Frank’s indispensableness is clear even to Dr. Forrester, as evidenced by his song of farewell to Frank after Frank is taken away at the end of season 6.  Things aren’t the same anymore for anyone, and the show itself is transformed in drastic ways for season 7 and even more so for the Sci-Fi channel seasons 8-10.

Though a litany of some of my favorite Frank moments wouldn’t mean much to you if you haven’t seen the show, chances are you probably aren’t reading this even you aren’t either familiar with it or interested in reading whatever I say anyway, so here are some of my favorite Frank moments.  As noted above, since Frank is a supporting character early on, it takes a while for him to be featured more regularly.  The later seasons, when the show spends more time with the Mads, are sometimes more enjoyable to watch because of the developed nature of the characters by that point.  For Frank, his greatness often comes in his delivery: the way he says his lines are often central to his magic.  His line “he’s got to want to change!” is perhaps the best example of this.  His emphasis on “want” is pure gold.  I have already mentioned another of my favorite Frank moments: at the end of Secret Agent Super Dragon, Clay hosts a “how to be a supervillain” conference, presumably for Joel and the ’bots, which doesn’t make much sense considering he is trying to control them, not give them insider tips on how he does what he does.  The gem, though, is Frank’s total lack of interest in the conferences, sleeping through it, then reading his already-prepared questions in as apathetic a voice as possible, including the stage direction.  He is supposed to read his question eagerly, but he says the word “eagerly” along with everything else without any zeal or eagerness at all.  Though this description does not do the moment justice, it is a beautiful moment after one of the more enjoyable episodes in the series.

The times Clay and Frank have to do what Joel and ’bots do are also great moments.  When Clay and Frank try to show them it’s not hard to make jokes through bad movies by sampling a few moments of #323, The Castle of Fu Manchu, Frank comes to the realization it would be a lot easier to do it if the movies weren’t so bad, which totally dispels Clay’s victory over Joel and the ’bots, giving them new energy to continue their lives out in space.  The other similar occurrence, when the magnetic storm sends them into a “Mirror, Mirror”-like parallel world in #611, The Last of the Wild Horses, allows us to see Dr. Forrester and TV’s Frank in the movie theater riffing on the movie for an entire segment, as well as doing some call-backs to memorable earlier episodes’ moments. I wish the entire episode was like that, but it’s only the first twenty minutes or so.

Frank gets to sing some of the better songs during the series, but certainly his best is “Nummy Muffin Coocol Butter” from #605, Colossus and the Headhunters.  Nummy Muffin Coocol Butter is an engineered puppy created by the Mads to overpower the world through cuteness, but Frank refuses to give him up and laments his loss exceedingly throughout the episode, culminating in this great song.  At the end of the episode, the Mads are thwarted by their plans once again, since Mike returns Nummy to them and they can do nothing but be enamored of the cutest pet in the world.  It’s hard not to love TV’s Frank.

Thank you, TV’s Frank, for teaching us how to laugh about love.  Again.

You Tell ’em, Ferret Face

Whereas TV’s Frank had the opportunity to grow and do diverse things (such as both support Dr. Forrester and be antagonist in different episodes), Frank Burns on M*A*S*H was for the most part a monolithic antagonist to the “good guys” on the show, Hawkeye, Trapper, and B.J, and yet he, too, solidified the show for most of his tenure.  Though often the receiving end of jabs, jokes, and not-always-good-natured ribbing, Frank Burns regularly gives us priceless lines delivered in as brilliant a way as possible.  Larry Linville took that character to the mountain; it’s no wonder he was highly regarded by his castmates.

As with many of the characters in the first couple of seasons, it took some time for Frank (and the writers) to find his best niche.  The many episodes of Frank in command reveal a mixed bag of personality traits, best summed up himself by his desire not “to be derelict in [his] officiousness” (“Henry in Love”). Season one is its own entity throughout, considering the revisions made later (Hawkeye from Maine instead of Vermont, the number and ages of Henry’s children, Radar’s personality), and so Frank’s perniciousness in “Henry, Please Come Home” feels out of character even for Frank in retrospect (especially the use of an armed sergeant to confiscate the ’still).  This also accounts for the contradiction of Frank “never knocking a team [he’s] on” and betting against the 4077th in “Requiem for a Lightweight.”  Frank does truly have a mean streak in him: he is unnecessarily cruel to Ginger in “Major Fred C. Dobbs,” and he gets downright scary in “The Bus.”  A complex and contradictory man, Frank Burns is at his best both when he knows he is right and when he is at his most vulnerable.

His contradictory nature is apparent from the beginning, since he claims to be standing for morality and American decency, yet at the same time engages in an extra-marital affair with Margaret.  His bedside manner, likewise, leaves a great deal to be desired for a follower of the Hippocratic Oath (“Deal Me Out,” “It Happened One Night”).  One of his more intriguing complications is his ambivalent relationship with Klinger: Frank usually seems to want Klinger out of the army, but he is never willing to sign the section 8 release form.  He gets close on one of his birthdays, but he never follows through with evicting Klinger from the army, even going as far as threatening to promote him if he continued dressing as a woman (“Welcome to Korea”).

Another enjoyable aspect of his contradictory nature is his infatuation with all the branches of the military.  His several naval and Air Force comments are so ubiquitous even Radar notices (“Are you sure you’re in the right branch of the service?” he asks in “Henry, Please Come Home”).  They are too numerous to list here, but one of my favorites is his plan to put the camp on pontoons and head for the high seas (“A Smattering of Intelligence” — his arm motion makes it perfect, even though Hawkeye and Trapper mock it).

Perhaps his most bizarre contradiction is the often-forgotten fact Frank is primarily responsible for the 4077th getting their Officers Club.  He arranged it with General Mitchell.  Frank, the alcohol-banning, “strength through obedience,” “‘m’ stands for ‘mobile,’” “this was a great war ’til you guys showed up” hypochondriac arranged for an Officers Club.  He is an enigma, that one.

When Frank knows he is right, he gives us some of his best lines: “There’s a war on, and we’ve no time for violence!” (“Deal Me Out”); “My morale’s fine; I love it here” (“Dear Peggy”); “Unless we all conform, unless we obey orders, unless we follow our leaders blindly, there is no possible way we can remain free” (“The Novocaine Mutiny”; this episode gives us many of my favorite Frank lines: “It was one of those days that, more than most, reminds us that war, no matter how much we may enjoy it, is no strawberry festival”); and, of course, “Individuality’s fine, as long as we all do it together” (“George”).  I could go on and on.  “It’s nice to be nice to the nice” is a classic.  Another gem is “I want fox holes: there, there, there, and there — each smartly dug” (“There is Nothing Like a Nurse”).  The words by themselves aren’t anything, but Larry Linville’s intonation turns it into pure gold.

One of the best self-assured Frank moments is at the beginning of “The Incubator,” when he refuses to scold Hawk and Trap: “Whatever happened to those two bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young surgeons I used to know?”  Some of his better lines come when he’s angry (or bizarrely responding to Hawk or Trap or BJ’s cordial greetings: “that’s for me to know and you to find out,” “go peddle your fish,” “oh go practice your putts,” “that strikes me funny, not” — and, let’s not forget “nertz to you” and “phooey to youey”), but when Frank knows he is right, we all win (except for Klinger when he makes him cry).

Vulnerable Frank is another impressive aspect to his character.  We see it with some regularity, and when we do, Frank is nearly admirable.  Frank’s attempt at sangfroid in “The Army-Navy Game,” just before he faints, is an early such moment, showing us Frank is not quite the leadership material he wants us to think he is.  Though he cowers throughout “The Sniper,” Frank shows us some willingness to be “a real man” and face the danger with his gun, though he doesn’t get very far — it’s still a good scene for him.  Frank dealing with his hernia in “As You Were” and resigning not to write the report against George in “George” are other great facets to Frank’s personality.  “The Novocaine Mutiny” is a great Frank episode filled with great lines and emotional scenes, both for and against him, but the ending always leaves me feeling sorry for Frank.  Despite trying to get Hawkeye court martialed, Frank’s utter look of isolation and being totally unwelcome at their poker game as he shrinks back out of the room gets me every time.

When he gets sick, naturally we see a very confused and vulnerable Frank: “Carry On, Hawkeye,” “As You Were,” and the greatness of “Soldier of the Month”: not only do I flinch every time Frank’s head hits the furniture when he faints, but also I have to recite with him “my friend, my comrade, my li-i-i-ittle soldier.”

Vulnerable Frank is prolonged throughout season 5, which warrants its own essay, no doubt.  The combination of Colonel Potter being openly hostile to Frank by the end of season 4 and the loss of Margaret’s intimacy starting in “Margaret’s Engagement” at the beginning of season 5 propels Frank down a spiral culminating with his final breakdown, promotion, and transfer (off screen in “Fade Out, Fade In,” the opener of season 6).  Frank experiences his initial breakdown in “Margaret’s Engagement,” culminating in detaining the Korean family and holding Potter, Hawkeye, and BJ at gunpoint.  When Radar rescues them with the phone call to Frank’s mom, we get to see what I think is the real Frank Burns: the genuinely vulnerable guy who grew up basically alone and has no friends.  His brother gave him the nickname “Ferret Face.”  Even his dad pretended to like him.  We get glimpses of this side of Frank earlier, true, especially in his great conversation with Trapper in season 3’s “O.R.,” but the loss of Margaret (and command back in season 4) sent him over the edge.  He recovers somewhat, as evidenced by his great jab at Margaret at the end of the episode, but as Margaret says later in the season in “38 Across,” his marbles are already shaken loose, beyond repair.

As evidenced by his final scenes in “Margaret’s Marriage,” I truly think Frank really cared for Margaret — not as “Hot Lips” or a mere physical plaything during a time of war, but as a genuine companion.  She truly was his “snug harbor.”  His litany of things they do together in “Bombed” is Frank’s genuine plea for their camaraderie, coupled by their calm spring day together in “Springtime.”  Certainly this is a point of tension for Margaret, as evidenced by her remarks in “Hot Lips and Empty Arms” and her understandably irate reaction to his phone call to his wife in “Mail Call … Again.”  But as she realizes somewhat too late (“Fade Out, Fade In”), Frank wasn’t all that bad.

Despite this impressive humanity in Frank, he is mostly the villain in a show never running out of antagonists: the army with a big “A,” the enemy, disease, bombs, bullets, the weather, boredom, and more.  Frank embodies, unfortunately, unthinking conservative right-wing politics (with a dollop of hypocritical Christianity).  It is clear from the beginning of the series his monolithic flag-waving is in stark contrast to the protagonist views of Hawkeye and Trapper: life and health are more important than national boundaries and patriotism.  I don’t wholly disagree with them, but the older I get the more I agree with Frank on multiple things (not everything, of course).

Sometimes Frank is right, even when everything in the episode disagrees with him.  That deep into the Korean War, it is too late for pacifism.  Why not fight to win?  Certainly peace is preferable to war in philosophical, general human culture terms: clearly I’m not joining the army anytime soon — but Frank is right about either committing to war or exiting altogether.  Why should they really laugh at an enemy bomber attacking them every day?  This is war — blast Charlie out of the sky; don’t gamble on him.  (Strangely enough, this makes Frank quite similar to the Ancient Mariner of Coleridge’s poem, the 4077 gang represents the other sailors, and Charlie is the albatross.)  Halfhearted commitment to war certainly didn’t help the wounded any.  “Better dead than Red?”  Well … quite possibly, yes.

This is part of the great irony of his character: he is clearly supposed to portray improper thinking, but a good deal of the time he is philosophically accurate; he is just often wrong in his implementation of his ideas (not that I’m condoning his anti-foreigners mentality or infidelity).  “Strength through obedience” is philosophically correct.  Certainly as Christians, we know our identity, purpose, and meaning are found in proper relationship to Christ the King, by whom we were created and to whom we submit.  Additionally, whereas Hawkeye is frequently referring to Sigmund Freud as some sort of doyen of human behavior, Frank doesn’t “put any stock in the Freud stuff” — and he shouldn’t, and neither should we, really.

Unlike Henry (as much as I love him), Frank realizes more the importance and pressures of command — he just falters (almost completely) in application and usage of power.  But Frank did try to keep the camp in shape, with calisthenics and regular mobility exercises: when Col. Potter laments the softness of the camp in “The M*A*S*H Olympics,” it certainly wasn’t Frank’s fault.  Perhaps his address to the troops at the beginning of “Henry in Love” best captures the schism between Frank’s intentions and applications:

As you all know, tonight Colonel Blake will resume his command after a week in Tokyo.  Unless I made a few remarks about my recent stint as your temporary supreme commander, I would be derelict in my officiousness.  I think you’ll all agree that by trying to introduce more discipline, more order, I have hopefully made this a more enjoyable war for all of us.  Leadership is a lonely business.  Your Napoleons, your Kaisers, your Attilas the Hun, we’re all alone there in the front office as I have been this week.  I have thought of you.  I know you have thought of me.  But some of the notes in the suggestion box were really below the belt.  I mean, why drag my mother into this?

Hawkeye and Trapper naturally represent less discipline and less order (outside of the O.R.), so naturally they can’t get along with Frank most of the time, especially when he is in one of his power swings.  But leadership is a lonely business, indeed, and Frank is willing to make the hard decisions — but like Barney Fife before him and Saul Tigh after him, he may not be cut out for command material.  Perhaps if Frank were a better surgeon, Hawkeye and Trapper and BJ would get along with him more.  As evidenced in “Dr. Pierce and Mr. Hyde,” Frank values democracy, freedom, and justice.  He just gets sidetracked by appearances and political squabbles.  If Frank could truly balance a leadership mixture of Napoleon, Kaiser, and Attila with a genuine Bible-believing morality (in contrast to his “thou shalt not admit adultery” version … perhaps Frank himself “rewrote the commandments”?), he may have made a great leader.  Unfortunately, he is too concerned with “looking right.”

But sometimes he is right.  And these are generally my favorite episodes of his.  Sadly for Frank, they usually occur when Margaret is not in the episode.  For the sake of time, we’ll focus on what I think is Frank’s best episode, season two’s “The Chosen People.”  Frank is the only one to get anything done in this episode.  He solves both plot points, essentially single-handedly (as far as the 4077 gang is concerned).  Despite the fact the episode begins with Hawkeye railing against Frank’s unwillingness to learn Korean and his insistence he is an American who doesn’t need to, Frank solves everyone’s problems in this episode.  True, he does get off to a rough start with the Korean family, and Sam Pak has to step in with his knowledge of the Korean language (being Korean himself), but Sam doesn’t provide any solutions to either the 4077th’s problems or the Korean family’s problems.  He just communicates in words what everyone already knew: they were there to set up house.

Later, while everyone is standing around wringing their hands over Radar’s supposed fatherhood, Frank comes in and suggests a solution: take a blood test of those involved.  The other doctors sarcastically applaud, but Frank’s right — and that’s exactly what they do.  They were just sitting around doing nothing, but Frank, the man of action, got the solution in motion.  Returning to the Korean family, Henry makes an ineffective phone call to Civilian Affairs, again offering no solution to anyone’s problems.  It is not until Frank calls and gets CA to send someone to help move them somewhere else does anything productive get done (despite the misunderstanding Frank gets himself in over the phone).  Trapper and Hawkeye don’t like the idea of moving the family, but would it really be good for the family to stay on a hospital site?  Certainly not.  And their adoption of the young mother and the baby (who isn’t Radar’s) brings something positive to both parties.  Frank gets them all transferred to a better place, and the family is even relieved and glad to go.  Frank solves all the problems.  Hawkeye ends by comforting Radar with the apparently solacing news he will someday lose his virginity.  How is that good advice?  How does that genuinely help Radar?  Frank’s somewhat bellicose upbraiding for Radar’s inappropriate dalliance is far better advice: don’t do that.  Frank has kids, yes, but he’s married, so it’s okay he has children (not okay that he is unfaithful, certainly).  Despite the hostile attitudes and words toward him throughout the episode, Frank saves the day all around.

Additionally, there’s Indecisive Frank in “Bombed,” Pecuniary Frank in “Bulletin Board,” Envious Frank in “The Gun,” and Disappointed Frank in “Change of Command.”  Economical Frank in “Some 38th Parallels” does exactly what Colonel Potter’s beloved Army wants him to do: sell trashy substances.  Lastly, we should mention Regular Guy Frank.  Despite usually being the antagonist (even when representing better ideas if not better actions), once in a great while Frank stops being snotty and pals around.  Unfortunately, more often that is a result of some manipulation by Hawkeye and Trapper, as seen in “Germ Warfare” and “5 o’clock Charlie.”  Frank genuinely enjoys working with Hawkeye and Trapper, only to find out the only reason they are talking to him is so he can’t get to his gun and shoot Charlie down.  Fortunately, though, thanks to the restoration of the entire episode on the dvd releases, we finally get to see the actual ending of the episode with Frank admitting he can’t stay mad at them, despite all their needling.

At the end of season two, in “Mail Call,” Hawkeye brings some of these feelings back and considers Frank is potentially worth humanizing, despite doing it in a slightly mean-spirited way through the Pioneer Aviation trick.  At least Hawkeye recognizes some humanity in Frank, and some nice lines throughout the next few seasons (rare though they may be) reflect that.  Perhaps this culminates in “Der Tag,” when Frank finally gets to play poker with the gang and unwind and have some fun.  Hawkeye and BJ ruin it somewhat at the end, though, which perhaps is another factor in sending Frank over the edge soon (coupled with “The Novocaine Mutiny” later), but it is nice to see Frank happy even for only a few minutes.

Henry, you are a bit mistaken: Frank, you aren’t always wrong, but even by being wrong sometimes, that is what’s so right about you.  He does willingly give Ho-John his mother’s precious silver frame.  That should count for something.  He’s not all bad, after all.  He’s not a great doctor, he’s not a doctor for the right reasons, he’s unfaithful to his wife (but it’s not like Trapper or Henry hold the high ground there), but he can give as good as he gets (“Showtime”), and he cares about America and freedom.  He loves his mother, tapioca, and chocolate pudding.

So long, Ferret Face.  I hope you find your tortoise-shelled scrub brush.

You Were Enjoyed

Such ends our tribute to two of the greatest Franks in TV history.  If you are not familiar with them, I exhort you to go out and start watching Mystery Science Theater 3000 and M*A*S*H.  There’s always time for what matters.

I’d like to close this article with the lyrics to “The Greatest Frank of All,” and though it was originally sung to TV’s Frank, I think it applies just as equally to Frank Burns, MD (manic depressive).

Frank, the sun never shone upon our love before,

Until there was Frank.

Up for you from me to you

Sweet floppy Frank

We’ve had a lifetime of Frank.

Endless Frank will always flow

For all we know.

For all we know.

Right from the first day

I knew your name

I never knew love was the same.

Never knew love was the same.

Hopin’ to find

Sweet Frank on the line,

Nothin’ but sweet lovin’ Frank.

Cause it’s Frank

Cause it’s knowin’ that love

Could be Frank if only

The sun and the moon

Would collide to be Frank.

Let me be frank about Frank,

Let me be frank about Frank.

Let me be frank about Frank,

’Cause Frank is the best Frank

That’s ever happened to me.

Goodnight, Franks.  You were enjoyed.