Waiting for the Barbarians by J. M. Coetzee, is a fictitious narrative constructed to illustrate the corrupt ruling and heinous crimes that were unjustifiably committed by the ruling empire. Coetzee constructs the main protagonist, the magistrate, to adhere to the laws of government while sharing the perspective that those laws are at times unjust. The author presents the audience with a self-evaluating protagonist to provoke a deeper connection with the character. This connection is further developed throughout the novel as the character questions his position in the ruling empire. The author presents the audience with his position on the empire by personifying his values through the magistrate. This is demonstrated when the magistrate contemplates …show more content…
Peculiar - strange; queer; odd, all ignorant ways to define the relationship between two human beings. Ignorant but strangely justified by the empire because of their perception of the barbarians which by branding as barbarian is in its own right ignorant. Therefore, acknowledging this relationship as peculiar is justified when taking into account the saturated ignorance the empire established through the generations. The magistrate’s acknowledgment of his own ignorance is self-examined when he realizes, “The distance between myself and her torturers, I realize, is negligible” (Coetzee 27). The differences between her torturers and the magistrate are so minute in her eyes that it disgusts him. He realizes his association to the crimes are equally as criminal as inflicting the punishment. This self-examination leads him to examine his position in the empire and how he wants to distance himself from their decree. Initially, to develop a separation from the government he tries to establish a difference in their relationship. In order to establish a difference, the magistrate offers the barbarian a job and residency. By providing these accommodations he is already significantly different from those who tortured her. Even though he has given her those accommodations he still has unpronounced discrepancies where he perceives her as a barbarian instead of a human. These instances of distaste for the girl keep the magistrate from fully detaching himself from the empire. He expresses his confliction by questioning his tendency to revert back to his racist instilled roots by stating, "How can I believe that a bed is anything but a bed, a woman’s body anything but a site of joy? I must assert my distance from Colonel Joll! I will not suffer for his crimes!” (Coetzee 44). While trying to assert his distance between Colonel Joll’s
In his philosophical text, The Republic, Plato argues that justice can only be realized by the moderation of the soul, which he claims reflects as the moderation of the city. He engages in a debate, via the persona of Socrates, with Ademantus and Gaucon on the benefit, or lack thereof, for the man who leads a just life. I shall argue that this analogy reflecting the governing of forces in the soul and in city serves as a sufficient device in proving that justice is beneficial to those who believe in, and practice it. I shall further argue that Plato establishes that the metaphorical bridge between the city and soul analogy and reality is the leader, and that in the city governed by justice the philosopher is king.
Cicero’s essay, titled On Duties, presents a practical approach concerning the moral obligations of a political man in the form of correspondence with his young son. Essential to the text, the incentive for Cicero to undertake On Duties emerges from his depleted hope to restore the Republic within his lifetime. Cicero therefore places such aspirations in the hands of his posterity. The foremost purpose of On Duties considers three obstacles, divided into separate Books, when deciding a course of action. Book I prefatorily states, “in the first place, men may be uncertain whether the thing that falls under consideration is an honorable or a dishonorable thing to do” (5). Cicero addresses the ambiguities present under this consideration and codifies a means through which one can reach a justifiable decision. Subsequently, he expounds the four essential virtues—wisdom, justice, magnanimity or greatness of spirit, and seemliness—all of which are necessary to conduct oneself honorably. As a result, the virtues intertwine to create an unassailable foundation upon which one can defend their actions. Cicero’s expatiation of the four virtues, though revolving around justice and political in context, illuminates the need for wisdom among the populace in order to discern a leader’s motivations. This subtly becomes apparent as Cicero, advising his son on how to dictate decision-making, issues caveats regarding the deceptions that occur under the guise of virtue.
...erous to humans as a whole. Although João’s body accepts Jodahs, his mind stops him from total acceptance, resulting silent hatred during the day but acceptance at night. Jodahs is not male and yet becomes a victim to homophobia due to lack of understanding. Jodahs illustrates the struggles of an intersex and demonstrates the isolation one feels as a victim of difference.
But if any one transgresses, and does violence to the laws, or thinks to dictate to his rulers, such an one can win no praise from me. No, whomsoever the city may appoint, that man must be obeyed, in little things and great, in just things and unjust; and I should feel sure that one who thus obeys would be a good ruler no less than a good subject, and in the storm of spears would stand his ground where he was set, loyal and dauntless at his comrade's sid...
While being taunted he takes his role as prisoner and breaks down from that with the taunting. His role as the prisoner continues as his cries and taunts from the other inmates bring the attention of the guards for being noisy. He is then reprimanded by the guards for causing noise with his crying. The prisoner is being disciplined by the guard, it is the case where the both the inmate and guard are assuming their roles in
...aracter in the novel has, the novel ends with him “feeling stupid.” (Coetzee, 156) The girl is gone and the conflict between the empire and the barbarians rages on; the magistrate still does not have all the answers for the world that is crumbling around him. Still, he will presumably continue to search, as Coetzee largely leaves the novel open-ended. For the magistrate however, it is not his destination that is important, but his journey. During his journey he learns a lot about the nature of humanity, and about the nature of the conflict between empire and subject. Ultimately peace will not be achieved between the empire and the barbarians until each side fully recognizes the humanity of the other side, the same way the magistrate came to recognize the humanity of the girl.
154, 956). This indicates two main points. Firstly, it speaks to the dangers of a conventional wisdom that is unwise in so far as it lacks the ability to sort out its own contradictions and to truly consider how the relationship between conventional laws and justice is a very complex relationship that needs to be articulated and sorted out for all its contradictions. Secondly, it points to the emergence of a discourse of hazardous individualism that emerges largely as a direct consequence of a collectivized political virtue that emphasizes the importance of restrain and justice, yet is unable to show the benefits the individual may incur from such virtues. Perhaps, this second point is made better evident towards the latter end of the interchange between the speeches. Consider, for example, how the unjust speech is able to promise those who follow its teachings positive and immediate pleasures, namely “boys, women, wine, relishes…” (p. 156, line 1001). Now consider how the just speech, speaking two lines before, simply celebrates the “ancient education” for the ways in which it “pitches [the singing of the sons] to the harmony of the fathers” and for “beating and trashing” those who seek to make any “modulations” (p. 154, lines 967-970). Finally, all the just speech is able to promise those
But he, as loving his own pride and purposes, Evades them, with a bumbast circumstance Horribly stuff'd with epithets of war, And, in conclusion, Nonsuits my mediators; for, "Certes," says he, "I have already chosen my officer." And what was he? Forsooth, a great arithmetician, One Michael Cassio, a Florentine (A fellow almost damn'd in a fair wife) That never set a squadron in the field, Nor the division of a battle knows More than a spinster; unless the bookish theoric, Wherein the toged consuls can propose As masterly as he. Mere prattle without practice is all his soldiership. But he, sir, had the election;
As main characters, they are opposite foils of each other in many aspects. The main differences highlighted between the Officer and the Traveller revolve around their ideas of judicial systems. The Officer clearly supports the Old Commandant's violent and un-fair judicial system. He sees no issue with himself being an officer, judge, and executioner. When asked about the condemned man's knowledge of his own punishment the Officer responds, “It would be useless to give him that information. He experiences it on his own body” (Kafka 4). He believes that guilt is “beyond all doubt” (Kafka 5). The Traveller clearly disagrees with this principle. He is astonished that the Condemned Man has no chance to defend himself, nor any prior knowledge of his punishment. The officer understands why the traveller would feel this way; because he is a foreigner from the West. The Traveller is introduced as a guest in the colony, and the Officer is aware of where he is coming from. He understands that the ways in which The Penal Colony operates is much different from other societies. The Penal Colony, being comprised of prisoners, is a more strict society. The Officer knows this, and is thus not surprised by the opposition of the Traveller to the
The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those views about justice are to be overcome.
J.M. Coetzee’s novel Waiting for the Barbarians presents a story with an allegorical message in regards to the human condition. The book works to challenge humanity, and imperialism by investigating the limits of human cruelty and compassion. Coetzee undertakes this from a unique perspective; the novel itself transcends any one historical framework and allows the author to deal with history on his/her own terms. This structure provides a platform to deliver a deeper, more general message to the reader that in principle applies to myriad societies throughout history, present day, and possible future civilizations as well as to the individuals within these societies. Amongst the most salient concepts Coetzee explores in his work deals
Coetzee is a novel that follows David Lurie’s downfall after he is released from his job as a South African college professor for having an affair with one of his students, Melanie Isaacs. David and Melanie’s complicated relationship strongly parallels the oppression that black women in South Africa experienced historically. Despite the reckless nature of the relationship, it brought David to the location that he needed to be in. David Lurie needed a change of surroundings in order for him to change his worldview and the affair with Melanie took him out of his comfort zone and into a world that forced him to redefine his
Compassion, like generosity is also admired. But a ruler must be careful that he does not show compassion unwisely. A new ruler has to be cruel initially, because being a new ruler is full of d...
The concept of written laws and their place in government is one of the key points of discussion in the Platonic dialog the Statesman. In this philosophical work, a dialog on the nature of the statesmanship is discussed in order to determine what it is that defines the true statesman from all of those who may lay claim to this title. This dialog employs different methods of dialectic as Plato begins to depart from the Socratic method of argumentation. In this dialog Socrates is replaced as the leader of the discussion by the stranger who engages the young Socrates in a discussion about the statesman. Among the different argumentative methods that are used by Plato in this dialog division and myth play a central role in the development of the arguments put forth by the stranger as he leads the young Socrates along the dialectic path toward the nature of the statesman. The statesman is compared to a shepherd or caretaker of the human “flock.” The conclusion that comes from division says that the statesman is one who: Issues commands (with a science) of his own intellect over the human race. This is the first conclusion that the dialog arrives at via the method of division. The dialog, however, does not end here as the stranger suggests that their definition is still wanting of clarity because there are still some (physicians, farmers, merchants, etc…) who would lay claim to the title of shepherds of humanity. For this reason a new approach to the argument must be undertaken: “then we must begin by a new starting-point and travel by a different road” (Statesman 268 D.)
In Plato’s Republic, the main argument is dedicated to answering Glaucon and Adeimantus, who question the reason for just behavior. They argue it is against one’s self-interest to be just, but Plato believes the behavior is in fact in one’s self-interest because justice is inherently good. Plato tries to prove this through his depiction of an ideal city, which he builds from the ground up, and ultimately concludes that justice requires the philosopher to perform the task of ruling. Since the overall argument is that justice pays, it follows that it would be in the philosopher’s self-interest to rule – however, Plato also states that whenever people with political power believe they benefit from ruling, a good government is impossible. Thus, those who rule regard the task of ruling as not in their self-interest, but something intrinsically evil. This is where Plato’s argument that justice is in one’s self-interest is disturbed. This paper will discuss the idea that justice is not in one’s self-interest, and thus does not pay.