Everyman describes the nature and destiny of mankind both in a general fashion and in a specifically Christian fashion. Speaking generally, every human being will die, and almost all human beings face a day of reckoning of some sort. Even the completely secular and atheistic have moments when they reflect on their lives and seek meaning. However, in a Christian sense, the meaning is more pointed. Everyman shows us that we will all die and face a specifically spiritual judgment. When we do, the many things that we value in life, like Goods and Strength, will prove wanting. We'll need to turn to spiritual help at that moment if we want to go to heaven, rather than burning forever.
In addition to this answer, Everyman is sent on this journey for making poor choices. God is angry with man's decisions, and sends him toward his judgement. It is the nature of mankind to deny wrong doing, and then to try and beg more time--both of which Everyman does in the play. Then, once he accepts his journey, he attempts to get others to accompany him. Also true to human nature, all his "friends" agree to go until they find out where he's going...suddenly everyone has to wash his hair or walk the cat.
By nature, humankind wants to avoid death's call, and everyman (we) spend most of our energy absorbed in activities that help us avoid thinking about what happens when we die. However, according to Everyman, there is no escaping death, and there is no escaping being called into account for what we've done while we've been alive. When death comes, Everyman is unprepared: he thinks he has more time, and tells Death he is not ready to accompany him: none of us are. Certainly, none of Everyman's earthly companions are either. Each, in turn, agrees to be with Everyman until he finds out where Everyman has to go; then each, in turn, refuses to accompany him. Just like Everyman, humankind must all face Death alone. There is no avoiding the final call, either, and no postponing it until a more convenient time. When Death comes, everyman even tries to offer him money to come back later, but no earthly goods have any effect on Death. It is our destiny to die, and we will all die when God sends Death to collect us. We should, therefore, be prepared, for the only thing we can bring with us when we meet our reckoner is the accumulation of good works that we have accrued in our lifetimes (according to Everyman).
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
To describe our nature is not to define our natural place
Acknowledging that men and women are not the same is not an argument for genetic determinism, writes Amrit Shrestha.
Were traditionalists right about men and women after all? They always said the
sexes were different, and they used their ideas about those differences as the
excuse - when excuses were needed - for the relegation of women to their
subordinate sphere. If science seems now to be confirming these old beliefs, it is
not surprising that there is widespread alarm and insistent denial among
feminists and their sympathisers.It was the scientific approach to human nature that first challenged the traditional view. The sexes might seem very different; but, as John Stuart Mill pointed out, the extent to which these appearances reflected natural differences was impossible to tell because men and women had always been in systematically different environments. And the case against tradition seemed to gather strength as agnosticism was replaced by the conviction of social scientists that observed differences between the sexes were cultural constructs. Feminists adapted the term "gender" to refer to such non-biological differences, and it is a sign of how essential the social construction view has become to feminism that the
substitution of "gender" for "sex" seems to have become compulsory among the
politically enlightened.
But this seems to be changing. Techniques of observation and control have
appeared that were unavailable in Mill's time, and these seem to be confirming
that the sexes really are different by nature. Similar results have come from the
new approach provided by evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary psychology tackles the problem of disentangling natural and cultural
differences between the sexes by using our understanding of evolutionary
processes to generate hypotheses about natural differences. Darwin recognised
that as soon as evolution produced creatures with emotions and intelligence,
these qualities would be as relevant to the evolutionary fate of their possessors as
would anything else about them. And when the sexes - of almost any sentient
species - are considered from this viewpoint, it becomes clear that males and
females should be expected to have significantly different temperaments, just
because their reproductive systems are so different.
A human female, reproducing flat out, can produce only about one child a year. A
human male's reproductive potential is limited only - though entirely -by his ability
to impregnate women. This alone suggests that different psychological
characteristics would have been needed for evolutionary success. The problem is
that many familiar differences between men and women, dismissed by recent
feminism as culturally induced, are turning out to be ones that natural selection
might be expected to have planted deep in our natures.
Evolutionary reasoning has suggested, for instance, that women should be
attracted to impressive, high-status males from whom they seek undivided
support and commitment, and should be strongly devoted to the care of their
children. Men should be competitive, adventurous and anxious to possess
women and control their sexuality. They should prefer youth and beauty in women.
but also be eager to grasp whatever sexual opportunities present themselves.
It begins to sound as though, after all its early promise as an ally of liberation,
the science of human nature is leading straight back to the traditional view. It is hardly surprising that, in many quarters, the whole project of evolutionary psychology is dismissed as politically motivated pseudo-science and is met with accusations of genetic determinism, essentialism, gross oversimplification, insensitivity to variation and overlap, categorising, stereotyping and rampant sexism.
But the new claims about sex differences, while they may sound like the old ones,
are really quite different. Many old ideas are not upheld - there is nothing in
evolutionary psychology, for instance, to suggest that women are less intelligent than men.
There is also a more fundamental, and more subtle, point. Even when modern
claims about male and female differences of nature sound like traditional ones,
they are not because there has been a radical change in the idea of nature and
what it means to understand the nature of something.
The familiar, traditional claims about the natures of men and women were made
against the background of a long-established view of the world as a naturally
ordered whole, in which all was harmonious as long as everything stayed in its
ordained place. If things went wrong, that was because of interference in the
natural order of things. This idea comes in many different versions, of which the
most familiar is the religious view that sees order and complexity as underlain by
intelligent design. Against the background of such traditions, to understand the
nature of something is to understand its place in the scheme of things, and to
understand the nature of men and women is to know how they should live
Were traditionalists right about men and women after all? They always said the
sexes were different, and they used their ideas about those differences as the
excuse - when excuses were needed - for the relegation of women to their
subordinate sphere. If science seems now to be confirming these old beliefs, it is
not surprising that there is widespread alarm and insistent denial among
feminists and their sympathisers.It was the scientific approach to human nature that first challenged the traditional view. The sexes might seem very different; but, as John Stuart Mill pointed out, the extent to which these appearances reflected natural differences was impossible to tell because men and women had always been in systematically different environments. And the case against tradition seemed to gather strength as agnosticism was replaced by the conviction of social scientists that observed differences between the sexes were cultural constructs. Feminists adapted the term "gender" to refer to such non-biological differences, and it is a sign of how essential the social construction view has become to feminism that the
substitution of "gender" for "sex" seems to have become compulsory among the
politically enlightened.
But this seems to be changing. Techniques of observation and control have
appeared that were unavailable in Mill's time, and these seem to be confirming
that the sexes really are different by nature. Similar results have come from the
new approach provided by evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary psychology tackles the problem of disentangling natural and cultural
differences between the sexes by using our understanding of evolutionary
processes to generate hypotheses about natural differences. Darwin recognised
that as soon as evolution produced creatures with emotions and intelligence,
these qualities would be as relevant to the evolutionary fate of their possessors as
would anything else about them. And when the sexes - of almost any sentient
species - are considered from this viewpoint, it becomes clear that males and
females should be expected to have significantly different temperaments, just
because their reproductive systems are so different.
A human female, reproducing flat out, can produce only about one child a year. A
human male's reproductive potential is limited only - though entirely -by his ability
to impregnate women. This alone suggests that different psychological
characteristics would have been needed for evolutionary success. The problem is
that many familiar differences between men and women, dismissed by recent
feminism as culturally induced, are turning out to be ones that natural selection
might be expected to have planted deep in our natures.
Evolutionary reasoning has suggested, for instance, that women should be
attracted to impressive, high-status males from whom they seek undivided
support and commitment, and should be strongly devoted to the care of their
children. Men should be competitive, adventurous and anxious to possess
women and control their sexuality. They should prefer youth and beauty in women.
but also be eager to grasp whatever sexual opportunities present themselves.
It begins to sound as though, after all its early promise as an ally of liberation,
the science of human nature is leading straight back to the traditional view. It is hardly surprising that, in many quarters, the whole project of evolutionary psychology is dismissed as politically motivated pseudo-science and is met with accusations of genetic determinism, essentialism, gross oversimplification, insensitivity to variation and overlap, categorising, stereotyping and rampant sexism.
But the new claims about sex differences, while they may sound like the old ones,
are really quite different. Many old ideas are not upheld - there is nothing in
evolutionary psychology, for instance, to suggest that women are less intelligent than men.
There is also a more fundamental, and more subtle, point. Even when modern
claims about male and female differences of nature sound like traditional ones,
they are not because there has been a radical change in the idea of nature and
what it means to understand the nature of something.
The familiar, traditional claims about the natures of men and women were made
against the background of a long-established view of the world as a naturally
ordered whole, in which all was harmonious as long as everything stayed in its
ordained place. If things went wrong, that was because of interference in the
natural order of things. This idea comes in many different versions, of which the
most familiar is the religious view that sees order and complexity as underlain by
intelligent design. Against the background of such traditions, to understand the
nature of something is to understand its place in the scheme of things, and to
understand the nature of men and women is to know how they should live
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Nature
In such a night, when every louder wind
Is to its distant cavern safe confined;
And only gentle Zephyr fans his wings,
And lonely Philomel, still waking, sings;
Or from some tree, famed for the owl's delight,
She, hollowing clear, directs the wand'rer right:
In such a night, when passing clouds give place,
Or thinly veil the heav'ns' mysterious face;
When in some river, overhung with green,
The waving moon and trembling leaves are seen;
When freshened grass now bears itself upright,
And makes cool banks to pleasing rest invite,
Whence springs the woodbind, and the bramble-rose,
And where the sleepy cowslip sheltered grows;
Whilst now a paler hue the foxglove takes,
Yet checkers still with red the dusky brakes
When scattered glow-worms, but in twilight fine,
Shew trivial beauties watch their hour to shine;
Whilst Salisb'ry stands the test of every light,
In perfect charms, and perfect virtue bright:
When odors, which declined repelling day,
Through temp'rate air uninterrupted stray;
When darkened groves their softest shadows wear,
And falling waters we distinctly hear;
When through the gloom more venerable shows
Some ancient fabric, awful in repose,
While sunburnt hills their swarthy looks conceal,
And swelling haycocks thicken up the vale:
When the loosed horse now, as his pasture leads,
Comes slowly grazing through th' adjoining meads,
Whose stealing pace, and lengthened shade we fear,
Till torn-up forage in his teeth we hear:
When nibbling sheep at large pursue their food,
And unmolested kine rechew the cud;
When curlews cry beneath the village walls,
And to her straggling brood the partridge calls;
Their shortlived jubilee the creatures keep,
Which but endures, whilst tyrant man does sleep;
When a sedate content the spirit feels,
And no fierce light disturbs, whilst it reveals;
But silent musings urge the mind to seek
Something, too high for syllables to speak;
Till the free soul to a composedness charmed,
Finding the elements of rage disarmed,
O'er all below a solemn quiet grown,
Joys in th' inferior world, and thinks it like her own:
In such a night let me abroad remain,
Till morning breaks, and all's confused again;
Our cares, our toils, our clamors are renewed,
Or pleasures, seldom reached, again pursued.
Is to its distant cavern safe confined;
And only gentle Zephyr fans his wings,
And lonely Philomel, still waking, sings;
Or from some tree, famed for the owl's delight,
She, hollowing clear, directs the wand'rer right:
In such a night, when passing clouds give place,
Or thinly veil the heav'ns' mysterious face;
When in some river, overhung with green,
The waving moon and trembling leaves are seen;
When freshened grass now bears itself upright,
And makes cool banks to pleasing rest invite,
Whence springs the woodbind, and the bramble-rose,
And where the sleepy cowslip sheltered grows;
Whilst now a paler hue the foxglove takes,
Yet checkers still with red the dusky brakes
When scattered glow-worms, but in twilight fine,
Shew trivial beauties watch their hour to shine;
Whilst Salisb'ry stands the test of every light,
In perfect charms, and perfect virtue bright:
When odors, which declined repelling day,
Through temp'rate air uninterrupted stray;
When darkened groves their softest shadows wear,
And falling waters we distinctly hear;
When through the gloom more venerable shows
Some ancient fabric, awful in repose,
While sunburnt hills their swarthy looks conceal,
And swelling haycocks thicken up the vale:
When the loosed horse now, as his pasture leads,
Comes slowly grazing through th' adjoining meads,
Whose stealing pace, and lengthened shade we fear,
Till torn-up forage in his teeth we hear:
When nibbling sheep at large pursue their food,
And unmolested kine rechew the cud;
When curlews cry beneath the village walls,
And to her straggling brood the partridge calls;
Their shortlived jubilee the creatures keep,
Which but endures, whilst tyrant man does sleep;
When a sedate content the spirit feels,
And no fierce light disturbs, whilst it reveals;
But silent musings urge the mind to seek
Something, too high for syllables to speak;
Till the free soul to a composedness charmed,
Finding the elements of rage disarmed,
O'er all below a solemn quiet grown,
Joys in th' inferior world, and thinks it like her own:
In such a night let me abroad remain,
Till morning breaks, and all's confused again;
Our cares, our toils, our clamors are renewed,
Or pleasures, seldom reached, again pursued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)