Transformation of London in the 1790s
Many changes were occurring in London during the 1790s. New ideas were emerging within England and around the world. The onset of the French Revolution contributed greatly to the unrest and the turmoil of the times. As the English citizens responded to both internal and external affairs, religious movements, social and political reform parties, and governmental reactions gained momentum. In addition, many writers responded and contributed to the progressive environment by giving the people a voice and further pointing out injustices. These movements and literary contributions influenced later writers and the lifestyles of people in and outside of London.
In the 1790s, certain religions were being revived in London. Methodism and the Church of England were reaching out more to the citizens and affecting more lives. Methodism was thought to be an integral part in the social evolution of the country. It had a stabilizing effect for those involved with the church, as well as a model for the political development of the working-class people. The church believed in equal political, economic, and social rights for all people and it also had a strict, structural organization, which encouraged stability amongst its members. (1)
While the churches had a soothing effect on the citizens of London, social and political reform increased concern, awareness, and uncertainty. The organization of the government in London contributed to the discontent of its citizens. The official City of London, which was only about one square mile, had the main banking center of the metropolis and a history of independent government established through two separate governing councils, something most sections of London decidedly lacked. Their setup was similar to Parliament, in that one council represented the wealthy, and the other represented more "ordinary" people, and was therefore more prone to agitate at any given time. In 1795, that lower council became fed up with the conflict with France and the unfavorable effect it was having on the merchants they represented. They directly charged the king to end the war and restore their prosperity. The motion failing, the City's council was more conservative afterwards. However, the notion that a part of London could challenge its sovereign must have given hope to many of its citizens. (2)
Westminster's municipal government was far from inspiring, as judges rather than representatives ruled the borough. However, this area "enjoyed a very wide parliamentary franchise, open to all resident householders.
The Virginia House of Burgesses was a system of representative government created by the Virginia Company, first convened in 1619. It could make laws and levy taxes; however, the English governor and council could veto its acts. New England’s Town Meetings were the main institution of local government in a Yeoman Society in which most adult men had a vote. (1630-1700). Both were significant because they are both institution of governments created by the people to represent the people. The Virginia House of Burgesses attracted the migrants and the Town Meetings were created to fit the need of the Purtians’
Religion is the substance that produced social morality which bound all elements of society in the Jacksonian Era. Religion produced the moral code all men adhered to. Church leaders were so vocal in pastoring patriotism and loyalty to one's God and country. Church members received the message of liberation and promoted the common man to seek social and political equality. The concept of divine morality in the early-19th century held accountable the behavior of all who were at least partially active in their social environment.
The novel The One Who Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest written by Ken Kesey and The Crucible play written by Arthur Miller are both strong texts which represent a lot of important discourses. This essay will compare and contrast both texts by analysing the main discourses relevant to both texts. The One Who Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest was written in 1959 and published in 1962. It is set in a mental institution which investigates the process and the human mind. The novel constantly raises concern for the authorities that control individuals through subtle and forced methods. The Crucible is set in a notional society, in which the church and the community are seen as one and religion is a strict passage which controls one’s life. In the Crucible, there is no room for deviation from social norms, since any individual whose life doesn’t imitate to the established laws, represents a great threat to the public and to the rules of true religion according to god. This Consequently results in great punishment and shame on the culprits identity. Both texts display strong discourses such as disempowerment/empowerment, woman’s status in society and authority. These discourses are portrayed through characters in both texts which will be compared and contrasted throughout this essay.
Firstly, both authors have distinctly different ideologies that pertain to their viewpoint of an American; in Catch-22 an American remains sane, however bordered by crazy people, while in The Catcher in the Rye Americans exude a fake and dismal air. An instance in Catch-22 when Yossarian realizes he is the only sane person among crazy people occurs when he realizes: “The night was filled with horrors, and he thought he knew what Christ must have felt as he walked through the world, like a psychiatrist through a ward full of nuts, like a victim through a prison full of thieves” (Heller 425). Heller, trying to express similarities between Yossarian and Christ, utilizes the emotion of loneliness, in addition to the feeling of sanity among a crazy society. Throughout the novel the other characters pin Yossarian as crazy when in the end only Yossarian preserves his sanity. Yossarian’s actions throughout the novel however, develop into increasingly radical, desperate attempts to escape the army. In contrast to having one goal and pursing it in extreme ways, the main character in The Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caulfield, faces a dilemma in what to do with his life. In fact he tells the reader t...
In the story the “train switch dilemma” a single train car is rushing toward a group of five unknowing workers who cannot hear the train approaching. Another train worker, who we will call Alex is working at his summer job, he sees the train headed for the five unknowing workers. Alex notices a rail switch lever which if pulled will divert the train unto a different track, however, if Alex pulls the rail switch lever he sees that it will divert the train to a track with one lone worker surly killing the one standing alone. The rail switch lever presents the following dilemma, do nothing and the train continues on its path towards the five, or pull the rail switch lever and send the train towards the one person. In this essay I will show why Alex should not pull the rail switch lever and doing so would be morally wrong. Making a choice that results in the intentional killing of someone and ignoring his or her value would be
The ‘Trolley Car Problem’ has sparked heated debates amongst numerous philosophical and jurisprudential minds for centuries. The ‘Trolley Car’ debate challenges one’s pre-conceived conceptions about morals, ethics and the intertwined relationship between law and morality. Many jurisprudential thinkers have thoroughly engaged with this debate and have consequentially put forward various ideologies in an attempt to answer the aforementioned problem. The purpose of this paper is to substantiate why the act of saving the young, innocent girl and resultantly killing the five prisoners is morally permissible. In justifying this choice, this paper will, first, broadly delve into the doctrine of utilitarianism, and more specifically focus on a branch
Capitalism as an economic system has not been around for a very long time. Stanford indicates that this economic system began in the mid-1700s in Europe . For a considerably young system, it almost seems impossible to imagine a different way of living. Capitalism has become deeply embedded in our social structures; it is naturalized as a way of doing day to day things. If this is the case, then we as humans have a long way to go if we are to achieve social and economic justice. The question I aim to explore is whether capitalism is capable of achieving socio-economic justice. I am arguing that it cannot achieve justice because there is too much focus on profit rather than people and it dislocates the consumers from the modes of production which indirectly promotes social inequality. Our current economic system which I will be interchangeably using as capitalism throughout the paper will examine why the focus on profit is detrimental to the social well-being of people and explain how capitalism is divisive and why this can pose negative outcomes for individuals and communities. It is with these arguments that outline the need for a fundamental change to how our economy is structured and managed.
Just as any story has a climax; one can deduce that the 17th and 18th centuries were the turning point for most of European history; however, different places experienced this change in different ways. As the previous discoveries and inventions were made by remarkable scientists like Galileo, the Enlightenment was the next logical step in the era. As incredible philosophers like Jean- Jacques Rousseau along with John Locke stepped in, people all over Europe began to realize the importance and even the mere concept of reason and natural rights granted to all persons. Apart from the common impact of the Enlightenment on all of Europe, France further experienced a drastic change in terms of society as well as finance, leading to the mark of a new beginning- The French Revolution. Due to a hierarchical system in France, a vast opposition by the nobility and the commoners grew regarding the old order, which led to take an action against the monarchical regime. As a result of a faster growth in consumer prices over wages, the next scenario was the economic fall of society that included taxes, food shortages and unemployment rates. As the necessity for a rebellion became crucial due to the lack of privilege towards the commoners, with the financial collapse of the French society, coupled with the lasting impact of the philosophes, the main causes of the French Revolution were the unequal hierarchy of the estate system, the growing economic crises, and the ideologies of the Enlightenment.
The ‘Great’ Reform Act of 1832 was considered as a failure and a betrayal for the Chartist movement. The Chartist movement demanded their six points from the people’s charter to be accepted by the government, some of which were supposed to have been passed in the 1832 Reform Act. These included, ‘vote by ballot’, ‘universal suffrage’ and ‘no property qualifications’. However, none of these were implemented in the 1832 Reform Act and rather the working class people saw the Act as if it was ultimately designed to exclude them from participating in the government and had dashed their hope of a parliament that would truly represent them. The introduction of uniform of ten pounds’ franchise in the boroughs excluded the vast
The Trolley Problem is a scenario possessing two similar versions that begs the question of whether or not it is ethical to kill a person in order to save five. In both versions of this problem, there is a trolley approaching a track with people tied down. In the first version there are two tracks; the first with five people tied down and the other with one person tied down, as the train is approaching the five people. Beside the track there is a switch that will cause the train to travel onto the second track, in which only one person is tied down. In the second version there is one track with the trolley approaching the five people who are tied down, except in this case there is a footbridge over the track with a person large enough to stop
Ambiguity in literature after World War II reflects and explores issues of self and society. These two ideas often work against each other instead of coexisting to form a struggle-free existence. J. D. Salinger, Sylvia Plath, and Richard Heller illustrate this struggle with their works. These authors explore ambiguity through different characters that experience the world in different ways. Identity, while it is an easy concept, can be difficult to attain. These authors seek out ambiguity with the human experience, coming to different conclusions. Ambiguity becomes a vehicle through which we can attempt to define humanity. J. D. Salinger’s novel, Catcher in the Rye, Sylvia Plath’s novel, The Ball Jar, and Richard Heller’s novel, Catch 22 explore ambiguity experienced through an attempt to find self. Each experience is unique, incapable of fitting a generic mold created by society.
... or being a manager of the assembly line. The aspiring could rise, and lasting good takes place.
"'Don't you know that some cities are ruled by tyranny, some by a democracy, and some by an aristocracy?'
The late eighteenth century was the beginning of a crucial turning point throughout Europe. In 1789, the people of France revolted against their government, proving that an absolute monarch did not hold all the power, and that citizens were not afraid to stand up for their rights. Known as the French Revolution, it lasted into the late 1790’s and paved the way for more freedom and equality among all citizens. Although this was a major movement for the future of European people in the nineteenth century, another equally significant accomplishment was beginning to unfold in England. The 1780’s marked the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in England, which led the way for tremendous population and economic growth throughout Europe.
The rule of law is thought to be one of the most fundamental doctrines of the constitution of the whole of the United Kingdom. The distinctive UK‘s constitution has influences previously on the judicial system too. Government and the legal systems in history have both been involved in rules and discretion and most of all the elimination of all discretionary power in which both of these are impossible and unwanted. The rule of law means in one sense, government by the law but obviously government is by the people as well as by the law. As soon as the governing people are added in, the government can’t then be by law on there own. Although the situation is not undoubtedly as the making of particular laws can be guided by open and relatively stable general laws that have been made. For the Rule of Law to have meaning in a democratic society, it has to mean that those who run it have comply with it for it to work; there must be no room for an “ends justifies the means”