Final Blog

At the beginning of this class, I was primarily apprehensive about writing literature reviews, finding relevant data that I could analyze to test my hypothesis, and which statistical method I would use in my study.  Throughout the course of this class, I have found that the first two fears turned out to be non-issues, but the third fear was somewhat well-founded.  There turned out to be a copious amount of literature on the topic of video games and academic achievement, with researchers finding evidence to support both sides of the argument.  The second fear actually turned out to be one of my favorite parts of the class.  I had never conducted my own survey before, and I developed a greater appreciation for the approval process researchers must undergo, as well as how they craft their questions and distribute their surveys to their test subjects.

Since I took COL Foster’s IS-460: Research Design for Political Science class last semester, I already had an idea of the major concepts covered in this course, such as the main parts of a political science research paper.  In that class, the professor briefly mentioned some of the most common statistical methods of analysis.  However, one of my favorite parts of this class was being able to actually practice analyzing data using these statistical methods.  I especially enjoyed learning about the different types of variables (interval, continuous, etc.) and how researchers used different statistical methods based on what type of variables they were dealing with.

Although the SPSS homework assignments did feel a bit monotonous at times, I enjoyed being able to work with statistics again for the first time since freshman year.  After eight weeks of SPSS practice, I now feel very comfortable with program itself.  Navigating the program and knowing how to do technical parts of obtaining the correct charts and graphs was never difficult for me, thanks in large part to the helpful visuals and explanations in the SPSS textbook.  Looking back on my time spent working on the SPSS homework assignments, I now realize that at times I became so focused on simply crunching the numbers that I did not always take a minute to step back and take note of the large concepts going on.  For example, I know from memory how to run a Cramer’s V test, but I struggle to remember when to run a Cramer’s V test, why I would want to run the test in a certain situation, and what exactly the test results tell me about my findings as a whole.  I actually mentioned this fear in my blog post at the end of week seven of the class, so it turns out that my fears were somewhat well-founded—and I am relying significantly on the SPSS textbook for guidance on when to run certain statistical tests.

            Nevertheless, I found the SPSS homework assignments to be helpful and informative.  I found the content of the later chapters to be the most interesting, because they reviewed the concepts that I had learned in freshman-level statistics and took then took them a step further.  For example, I already had a general idea of how to find statistical significance using p-values and confidence intervals, but by learning Somer’s d, I learned how to find the actual strength of this relationship.  So, I found these chapters to be the most rewarding ones of the SPSS segment of the course.

I remember feeling significant frustration at my fairly poor performance on the in-class quizzes.  Going into the quizzes, I felt confident that I knew all the terms, especially since I had taken COL Foster’s IS-460: Research Design for Political Science class last semester.  When I saw my first quiz results, I was surprised to find that I did not actually know the meanings of terms and concepts such as deductive and inductive logic, interval and ordinal data, and positive and negative skewness.  I was also frustrated that the second quiz did not go well, either.  I confused the definitions of additive and interactive relationships.  However, getting the answers to these questions wrong helped me to remember them for the future.  I now know these meaning of those terms today because I defined them incorrectly on the quizzes.

With our group’s research paper almost complete, I can safely say that, despite some challenges, this segment of the course has been my favorite.  We ran into some of the typical challenges of group projects, such as trying to make sure that all four people in the group are on the same page, especially with regards to how to interpret the data analysis.  For the data analysis, we were no longer working with nice, clean data from datasets in the textbooks that came with exact, step-by-step instructions on how to analyze them.  The task was intimidating at first, and I was nervous that the other groups were far ahead of us in this regard (some of them were).  Nevertheless, running tests on our own data that we collected and analyzing the results turned out to be the most rewarding experience of the entire course.  Even though none of our tests turned out to be statistically significant, I now feel like I have a solid understanding of every component part of a political science research paper.

Now that this course is under my belt, I can turn to tackling my Honors Thesis with the skills I have learned here.  That may prove to be my most rewarding intellectual experience yet.

The IRB Application and Data Collection

I found the SPSS homework assignments to be useful in that they introduced me to the basics of the computer techniques of statistical analysis. For the most part, I found them to be fairly easy, although sometimes they felt a bit repetitive. They were grade-boosters as well, but I am glad to be done with them and moving on writing an actual research paper.
Of course, my group already submitted drafts of our literature review and our section on our theory, hypothesis, and conceptual definitions earlier in the semester. I feel good about our work on them, although we need to add several more sources to our literature review and do a little more work on the causal mechanisms in the theory.
Right now, our immediate concern is collecting our data. I took COL Foster’s IS-460: Research Design for Political Science class last semester, so I am familiar with the main parts of a political science paper. However, in COL Foster’s class, all of us relied on existing datasets already available online. This is the first time that I will be collecting data myself.
In my past several years as a cadet at VMI, I have received numerous requests from other students, most of them via email, asking me to participate in a survey for their research paper. I had noticed that on all of those surveys, the first page was always an “Informed Consent” form.
As I am now filling out the IRB application for this class, I realize now the importance of these forms. I understand the seriousness of violating the privacy of subjects who participate in our study. I have learned techniques on how to maintain the privacy of the subjects, such as by not attaching their names to the surveys themselves at any point, and by destroying the surveys after we have gleaned the data from them and have the data stored securely on a spreadsheet in a database.
In the IRB application, our group had to decide what questions we wanted to ask our subjects, as well as how we were going to select participants in the study. The two most obvious questions that we absolutely needed to ask corresponded to our independent and dependent variables: “How much time do you spend playing video games?” and “What is your GPA?”. However, there were problems with simply asking these two questions directly. With regard to the question “How much time do you spend playing video games?”, people may not really know or may intentionally misreport how much time they invest into playing video games. Popular social thought often associates playing video games with laziness, unproductivity, and a lack of ambition. People may not want to admit to a researcher or themselves how many hours they truly spend gaming, or they simply may not keep track of the hours in the head very accurately. To combat these problems, our survey broke the main question down into parts by first asking the subjects how many days per week they played video games, and then asking how many hours per day they played. We hoped that this approach would guide subjects to provide more accurate estimates. With the regard to the question, “What is your GPA?”, similar problems seemed present. People with lower GPAs may be less willing to report to a researcher their actual GPA, or they may unintentionally misreport the information. To combat this problem, we provided a several ranges of GPAs. The subjects simply had to select the range into which their GPA fell, instead of writing down their actual GPA out to several decimal places.
After that, we submitted our IRB application, with survey attached, for review. We had to iron out a couple things: First, we had originally framed the question about video game usage as “Do you own and have access to a video gaming platform?” However, COL Sanborn pointed out that this did not really reflect the point of our research paper, which was to discover if actually playing more video games led to a decrease in GPA. So, we adjusted our original question to the questions noted in the paragraph above. Second, our survey had no control variables. So, we added several control variables such as whether the subject held rank or was an NCAA athlete. Third, we had to decide what to do if the first person on the door card was not in the room. (We decided to simply proceed to the next room.)
We agreed 60 subjects was a sufficient number for our survey. We surveyed 15 subjects each. Our method was to go to every fourth room in barracks and survey the person whose name came first on the door card. There was some trouble with this method since people where not always there or chose not to respond to the survey. (Most cadets are very tired of taking surveys at this point in the semester.) So, I had to adjust my survey method to going to every other room in barracks, and soon I had collected all the data I needed.
Once we had our data, the coding process was straightforward. I had never coded variables myself before. It was actually an interesting experience, as I changed people’s answers to basic questions into “1’s” and “0’s” on a spreadsheet in SPSS. COL Sanborn showed me how to change the names of each column of data in the SPSS spreadsheet to reflect the questions that each column corresponded to.
At this point, all we need to do is decide what type of statistical analysis to use and then run it on SPSS—and then write the 5,000-word paper.

Making controlled comparisons, making inferences about sample means; the chi-square test and measures of association; our group’s theory, hypothesis, and terms

Chapter 5 of the SPSS book covered making controlled comparisons. From my experience with political science papers so far, control variables are a key component of the research design. So, it is nice to know how to deal with them in SPSS. SPSS taught the technical details of how to analyze control variables, based on the concept that in order to help make correct interpretations of controlled comparisons, the researcher should evaluate the relationship between the control variable and the dependent variable, controlling for the independent variable. Although I was aware of the basic concept of control variables before, I learned that, when making a controlled comparison, the researcher may discover that the relationship between the dependent variable and independent variable is spurious, additive, or interactive. I already knew what the term “spurious” meant, but I missed several questions on the worksheet before I really learned the difference between additive and interactive relationships. Thyne’s textbook helped with my understanding of these terms.
Chapter 6 of SPSS focused on making inferences about sample means. It discussed T Test procedures, which I had not studied since freshman-year statistics classes. I found that I was fairly easily able to recall what I had learned about the 95% confidence intervals and the P-value from freshman year. Because of this, I found the exercises to be fairly straightforward. Thyne’s textbook further explained the concept of statistical significance. Overall, this chapter was easy to grasp because of my previous experience with the concepts.
Chapter 7 of SPSS and chapter 9 of Thyne’s book delved deeper into cross-tabulation analysis. I enjoyed learning about the chi-square test, and how it compares the observed and expected values. However, I found the measures of association to be particularly interesting. I had not studied them in a statistics class before. For example, Somers’s d reports different measures of the strength of a relationship between two ordinal-level variables. I also found the concept of the proportional reduction in error (PRE) measure to be especially potentially useful for my own future analyses, since a PRE measure reports the extent to which the values of the independent variable predict the values of the dependent variable. The exercises required a little bit more time and focus this time. I still do not know from memory when I am supposed to use a measure such as Somers’s d versus when I am supposed to use a measure such as Cramer’s V, but I do know that it depends on the whether the dependent and independent variables are ordinal or nominal.
Also, our group submitted our theory, hypothesis, and definitions of key terms last week. I feel satisfied about all three of these parts so far. My only concern is that the theory is not fleshed out enough. I am fairly certain that we covered all of our terms and defined them sufficiently; we may have even defined more terms than were actually necessary.

Continuing SPSS, trouble with the quizzes, and progress on the literature review

I have continued to enjoy using SPSS. The techniques on data comparisons in Chapter 4 of Pollock’s textbook have been particularly interesting, even though the homework assignment for that chapter was significantly more time-consuming than past chapters. I have been doing very well on the homework assignments. I have typically been taking my time with them, but I could probably move even faster through them and still achieve the same results. The instructions are easy to follow. My only fear is that I am not retaining all the details of exactly how to perform each kind of analysis, especially since we have now moved from simply running statistical tests on the data to actually manipulating the data itself (Chapter 3 of Pollock’s textbook). I anticipate that I may have to closely review the instructions in Pollocks’ textbook when the time comes to perform these steps on our own group project.
However, I have been scoring lower than I expected on the quizzes. On the first quiz, I mixed up the definitions of inductive and deductive logic. I now know that deductive logic is defined as starting with a theory, and then evaluating its observable implications with a test using observation. That is, deductive logic means starting with a broad, general theory, and then narrowing your focus to test that theory with specific examples. This is the approach that political scientists almost always take. Inductive reasoning is the opposite: This approach can be described as observing a specific event or phenomenon, creating a theory about why that event occurred is that particular context, and then seeking to apply that theory to other contexts that have similar characteristics. Thus, inductive logic moves from a narrow focus to a broader theory.
On the second quiz, I realized after the fact that I did not completely understand the difference between ordinal, nominal, and interval variables. On one question, I mistook the variable “year of birth” as an ordinal rather than an interval variable. I now know that ordinal data are ordered, but the difference between two values is not necessarily meaningful. The difference between two values in interval data, however, is meaningful. I am also now aware of the fact that just because a variable can be expressed in terms of numbers does not mean that it is ordinal. This confusion may have also stemmed from the fact that Thyne’s textbook only mentioned interval variables briefly, so I may not have paid attention to that section as much as I should have. On another note, I also confused negative and positive skews. Before I took the quiz, I knew the concepts behind skews: When the mean is higher or lower than the median, it pulls the distribution in the positive or negative direction. However, I simply mixed up which skewed distribution is described as positive and which is described as negative. I now know that graphs of positively skewed distributions have a tail that faces in the positive direction, and vice versa.
The group work on the upcoming literature review is going okay, but there seems to be a little confusion among the other members of my group on exactly what a literature review looks like. I had the opportunity to take COL Foster’s IS-460W Research Design for Political Science class last semester, so I have a decent idea of how to write a literature review. I have been offering some guidance to the other members of the group, and I believe they are getting the idea. My only concern is whether we all have been able to find scholarly articles that actually pertain to our topic. It seems so far that the articles we have found can be integrated to form a coherent and informative literature review.

Introduction to SPSS and choosing a political analysis paper research question

I have enjoyed getting back into statistics. I have not worked with statistics since MA-105 and MA-106 during freshman year. I like the fact that I am now applying these statistical concepts to actual datasets. The instructions in the textbook for using SPSS are very clear. The numbers-crunching part is easy. However, it took me a little while longer to understand some of the concepts behind the charts and graphs I was producing in SPSS, such as skewness. After some discussion with the professor, I now feel like I have a solid grasp on both the statistical concepts themselves and the SPSS analysis tools.
On another note, our group has been having some difficulty picking a topic for our political analysis paper. We bounced around several ideas, but some of them were unfeasible, at least for a one-semester undergraduate political science class. We have finally decided on a general area of interest, but still need to narrow our focus and produce a research question.

What I am most apprehensive about for this class

I am most apprehensive about dealing with literature reviews.  It seems that this part of answering a political science question requires a significant amount of reading.  In addition to the time-consuming nature of crafting the literature review, it appears that the literature review may also cause the political scientist to slightly change the question that he originally sought to answer, depending on whether previous scientists have already answered that question.  I am also concerned with the process of gathering and analyzing data.  I fear that the data I need to test a given hypothesis may not exist.  I am also apprehensive that I may utilize a faulty method of analysis, or not account for all relevant control variables.

Reflective Tag

Reflective Tag

The sinister way in which Iago manipulated Othello’s insecurities to produce jealousy within him fascinated me from the beginning.  I wanted to find out how Iago’s strategy had worked, and how this strategy incorporated early modern English views of jealousy.  When I wrote the short assignment for this topic, I looked only at how Othello exhibited frenzied passion, which reflected early modern English views of jealousy.  Once I began to look at other sources for my final essay, I began to realize the large role that social class played in the development of Othello’s jealousy.  Jealousy in early modern England was not equivalent to envy, which is how many people view jealousy today.  Jealousy was viewed as a sort of fierce and zealous guardianship of one’s possessions, which included one’s wife.  The higher the wife’s social class, the more “valuable” she was, and thus the greater the chance that her husband would become jealous over her.  This dynamic was reflected as clearly playing a significant role in the development of Othello’s jealousy.  As a result, I came to view Othello as a man who was at first confident in this worthiness to enter into Desdemona’s culture and social class, but lost his confidence and acted upon his deepest fears due to Iago’s lies, which drove him to kill Desdemona.  Ultimately, the story of Othello’s jealousy and his terrible fate is another example of how Shakespeare subtly challenged common views of his day.  In this case, Othello tried to fit into a social class that an early modern English audience would not have thought that he deserved to enter.  Yet, Shakespeare hints that Othello was a good man who was indeed worthy of Desdemona.  The fact that Shakespeare conveyed this in such a dramatic and gut-wrenching manner is what made this play so significant for me.

Othello’s Frenzied Mind and the Role of Social Class

Jealousy is a central theme in Othello.  Through the character of Othello, Shakespeare reflects early modern English views about the mental state and behavior of a jealous man, as well as views that husband with a wife of high social status was more susceptible to jealousy.  However, he calls into question the view that Othello’s Moorish race and social outsiderness made him unworthy to become a member of Desdemona’s social class.

Early modern English writers differed in their perspectives of the nature of jealousy.  Francis Bacon believed that jealousy was the result of one person loving another person to too great an extent.  For Bacon, this was not a virtuous kind of love, but a twisted love characterized by extreme sexual passion (Hall 328).  Benedetto Varchi and Robert Burton both view jealousy as an intense emotion, related to love, but not really the result of love (Hall 328).  Furthermore, Varchi believes that some kinds and groups of people, such as women, Venetians, and Africans, are by nature more prone to feeling jealous (Hall 328).

Benedetto Varchi notes that people who perceive themselves as generally inferior to other men and women are often jealous.  They are especially bitter that they are not esteemed or thought attractive by the women in their lives, and become jealous of the men and women who enjoy each other’s respect and approval (Varchi 333).  Nevertheless, Varchi concludes that jealousy is in fact a natural emotion that is actually virtuous in the appropriate context and in the appropriate quantity.  Feeling jealousy for one’s own reputation or the reputation of one’s wife are examples of circumstances where jealously is appropriate (Varchi 333-34).

Robert Burton describes the mind of a jealous man.  The jealous man is in a frenzied state.  He can never rest, but continuously views the actions of his mistress with suspicion, asking himself what may be the secret motives behind each of her seemingly insignificant words or actions (Burton 335-37).  Furthermore, his suspicions of her manifest themselves in his own actions.  He may one moment adore his mistress and speak lovingly and intimately to her, and then, after he has misinterpreted and blown out of proportion some small thing she has said or done, insult her, act violently toward her, and cast her out of his presence.  His suspicions also extend even beyond his mistress alone, and may include anyone among his own friends and family whom he suspects of becoming romantically involved with his mistress (Burton 336-37).  After discussing several options for curing this frenzied state that is jealousy, Burton concludes that a mistress’s only option is to exercise patience with her man until his jealousy subsides (Burton 337).

Francis Bacon points out that in order for a man to envy someone else, he must have someone to whom to compare himself.  A man compares himself to others who are of similar status as himself, but whom he perceives as being slightly better than himself.  For example, kings are not jealous of any one of their subjects, but instead kings are jealous of other kings.  Therefore, a man who focuses mainly on his own affairs and is not continually looking at the achievements of others is less prone to jealousy (Bacon 339).  Bacon also notes that, unlike other feelings, which arise from time to time when they are evoked by some situation, the feeling of jealousy exists constantly in man.  Bacon ultimately condemns jealousy as the most heinous emotion, and the one that best characterizes the Devil himself (Bacon 340).

Lastly, Thomas Wright, while he does not discuss jealousy in particular, describes how passionate feelings in general affect a man’s mind and consequent actions.  He explains how passions, instead of reason, can take control of a man’s will and drive him to commit rash deeds.  He also emphasizes the violent, chaotic nature of a mind dominated by passions.  As he writes, “We may compare the soul without passions to a calm sea with sweet, pleasant, and crispling streams, but the passionate to the raging gulf swelling with waves, surging by tempests, menacing the stony rocks, and endeavoring to overthrow mountains” (Wright).  He observes also that “inordinate passions either prevent reason or are stirred up by a corrupt judgment, and therefore neither observe time nor place, but upon every occasion would be leaping into action, importuning execution” (Wright).  Ultimately, Wright concludes that the passions cause continuous disquietude in the mind of man.  The soul of such a man is never at rest (Wright).

Othello’s unstable mental state is apparent throughout the play once he begins to buy in to Iago’s lies, especially through his interactions and conversation with Desdemona in the final scene.  Othello’s actions with Desdemona at the beginning of the scene particularly reflect Robert Burton’s description of the frenzied mind of a man who is at one moment adoring of his mistress, and at the next moment filled with contempt for her.  Even as Othello is preparing to strangle his wife to death, he cannot resist still loving her, as shown by his kisses.  The fact that he is still kissing her at line 19 and then has strangled her by line 87 is telling of his mental state.  This contradictory behavior is also in accordance with Wright’s description of the passions, particularly when Wright says that “the east wind riseth often against the west, the south against the north, the wind against the tide, and one passion fighteth with another” (Wright).  Othello’s passions of love for Desdemona and his jealousy over her alleged infidelity do indeed clash violently against each other.  Othello himself exclaims in Act III, Scene 3, “Like to the Pontic Sea, /Whose icy current and compulsive course /Ne’er feels retiring ebb…/Even so my bloody thoughts with violence pace /Shall…ne’er ebb to humble love, /Till that capable and wide revenge /Swallow them up” (III. iii. 470-76).  By the end of the final scene, Othello has himself acknowledged that his own excess of love for Desdemona spurred on the feelings of jealousy that Iago kindled.  He laments, “Then you must speak /Of one that loved not wisely but too well; /Of one not easily jealous but, being wrought, /Perplexed in the extreme” (V. ii. 353-56).  These lines reflect the views of Bacon that jealousy is the result of loving another person to too great an extent.  Othello seems to believe that he loved Desdemona so much that when it was merely suggested that she was being unfaithful to him, he lost his mind and thereby doomed her.  He explains this further by claiming that he is not by nature prone to jealousy, but that someone else, that is, Iago, used his own intense love for Desdemona against him (V. ii. 355).

It has thus been established that the jealous thoughts and behavior exhibited by Othello were reflective of the common views of jealousy in early modern period in England.  Many of today’s readers would share the view of these writers that jealousy is a sort of frenzied passion.  However, we will now examine how some early modern English views of jealousy that would likely not be shared by today’s audience played a role in the development of Othello’s jealousy.  The kind of jealous thoughts that Othello intimates to the reader reflect an early modern English conception of jealousy that does not align with modern American and European views of jealousy.  Today, most people more or less equate jealousy with envy.  According to this conception, jealousy is most certainly a vice: It is a selfish desire to have what someone else has.  It should be noted that this definition of jealousy does indeed appear in Othello.  However, this kind of jealousy manifests itself in the character of Iago, not Othello himself.  Just before he hatches his plot to kill Cassio in Act V, Scene 1, Iago chillingly states his feelings towards Cassio: “He hath a daily beauty in his life /That makes me ugly” (V. i. 19-20).  Iago clearly represents a kind of jealousy that resents others’ possession of good things.  This kind of jealousy, however, contrasts with the kind of jealousy which Othello displays, and which was the more common conception of jealousy in early modern England.  Olson explains that “in the early modern period, to be jealous of something was to guard or watch it carefully; we retain this sense of the word today in the phrases ‘jealous God’ or ‘jealous of one’s time’” (Olson 8).  While Iago demonstrated envy, which early modern English thought identified as one of the “seven deadly sins,” Othello demonstrates a kind of jealousy that is best described by the word “guardianship” (Olson 8).  Olson clarifies the early modern English definitions of envy and jealousy: “to be envious of something was to want something you did not have, and to be jealous was to fear losing something that you did” (Olson 8).  Thus, while Iago resents the “daily beauty” that Cassio possesses, Othello, at Iago’s urging, comes to fear that he is losing Desdemona.

The concept of Othello acting as some sort of jealous guardian of Desdemona can be better understood with an investigation into the early modern English view about the relationship between men and the women that were a part of their households.  In early modern England, a man’s wife or daughter were seen as his property, insofar as they were under his authority and protection.  Olson explains that “the discourses of early modern jealousy depended on the institution of private property, and often aligned women with objects, property, or commodities exchanged between men” (Olson 9).  For this reason, Olson describes as “hazy” the distinction between a man’s fear of being deprived of his material possessions and his fear being deprived of his wife in the form of her infidelity (Olson 9).  Othello’s jealousy, then, stems from his perception that he is losing sole possession of Desdemona.  Olson notes that early modern English thinkers generally defined sexual jealousy as the “desire for exclusive possession” (Olson 9).  Othello cannot bear the thought that Desdemona is allowing herself to be shared with, or even altogether stolen by, another man.  Understandably, he wants her all for himself.

The feelings of jealousy that Iago causes to arise in Othello were actually appropriate and justified according to most early modern English writers.  Jealousy in early modern England was not really perceived as a vice.  A man was justified in zealously guarding that which was rightfully his, and in flaring with jealousy when others threatened to seize his possessions.  Olson notes that “it was expected that a man would be jealous of his property, which would have included his wife or daughter” (Olson 8).  Shakespeare’s portrayal of Othello makes clear that the jealousy Othello felt was not a wicked emotion.  This portrayal of Othello is shown when Lodovico wonders aloud what he can even say to Othello, to which Othello replies, “Why, anything. /An honorable murderer, if you will, /For naught did I in hate, but all in honor” (V. ii. 301-03).  Thus, Shakespeare affirms Varchi’s proposition that jealousy, in the appropriate context, is natural and justified.  It was right for Othello to be jealous when he believed that Desdemona had been unfaithful.  Thus, Iago never really did corrupt Othello’s character; he merely convinced Othello of his lies about Desdemona and Cassio.  Othello’s only fault was to believe Iago.  At the end of the play, the audience is deeply disgusted and angered by way Iago manipulated Othello.  On the other hand, the audience is actually sympathetic toward Othello, whose jealousy, which would have been justified had Iago’s rumors been true, ultimately destroys him and the lives of those he loves.

We will now consider the significance of the relationship between Othello and Desdemona in terms of their respective social classes, and what role this played in the development of Othello’s jealousy.  Desdemona was the daughter of Brabantio, a senator, and thus was part of the social upper-class of Venice.  As stated earlier, in early modern England women were often seen as the property of the male head of the household.  The significant thing here is that, in the early modern English view, a woman of high class was seen, in the words of Olson, as “socially valuable” (Olson 18).  Of course, the more valuable a possession, the more zealously one guards it in order to maintain exclusion possession of it.  Consequently, one also becomes more jealous when one’s exclusive possession of that thing is threatened.  Therefore, Olson notes that in the view of an early modern English audience “Desdemona’s social location…would have been understood to be a potential catalyst for the kind of intense jealousy her husband develops.  To marry someone like Desdemona…was to put oneself at risk of developing jealousy” (Olson 3).  It is evident that Shakespeare had these views in mind because the words that Iago uses to arouse feelings of jealousy in Othello paint Desdemona as a highly valuable possession whom Othello cannot afford to let someone else steal.  Iago hints to Othello that, in the words of Olson, “he has not watched her with the vigilance required; he has watched her with loving pleasure when he should have been watching her with fear of loss” (Olson 19).  Shakespeare thus reflects the early modern English view that having a wife of high social status made a man more prone to jealousy, making this view a key element of Iago’s successful strategy to arouse feelings of jealousy in Othello.

The fact that Othello was a Moore exacerbated Othello’s feelings of insecurity (and therefore his feelings of jealousy) when he began to believe that Desdemona was betraying him by cutting off his only link to the Christian, Venetian upper class.  There was a popular belief in early modern England that Moors, or, in fact, all those who originated from the hot temperatures of Africa, were more susceptible to passions of various kinds, including jealousy (Olson 6).  However, this view of Moors is not relevant here.  Rather, Othello becomes jealous because Desdemona is so valuable to him; without her, he really has no personal connection to the society and culture of which his marriage to Desdemona has made him a part.  English professor Carol Neely refers to this as Desdemona’s “cultural insiderness” (Neely quoted in Olson 6).  Shakespeare draws on the common sentiment among the English people of his day that Moors, and, indeed, all those of Othello’s complexion, were some sort of “other” who did not really belong in upper-class Christian society.  According to Olson, Othello’s upper-class social status was “largely conferred on him by his wife” (Olson 17).  Under the influence of Iago’s lies, then, Othello is plagued by thoughts that he is not worthy to maintain his possession of Desdemona because he feels that she, as a white, Venetian Christian, is a member of a culture and a social class that he can never truly be a part of on his own because of his racial and social background.

At first, Othello shows no evidence of doubting his worthiness to enter into the same social class as Desdemona.  His initial self-confidence is rooted in the fact that he knows his cultural outsiderness played a large role in Desdemona’s love for him.  His stories of his exotic past were what attracted her to him in the first place (I. iii. 130-72).  Othello interpreted this reaction from Desdemona as reason to believe that he might actually be accepted by others in her social class.  Because of this, he is confident in his ability to defend his worth as Desdemona’s husband to her father Brabantio, as demonstrated by his words about Brabantio in the opening of Act I, Scene 2: “Let him do his spite. /My services which I have done the seigniory /Shall out-tongue his complaints” (I. ii. 17-19) (Olson 11).  Furthermore, he proves that he does not hesitate to take control of a situation.  When Brabantio and Iago draw their swords to harm each other, Othello states in a calm yet commanding voice, “Keep up your bright swords, for the dew will rust them” (I. ii. 60).  Othello thus shows that he has no reservations about his ability to lead as the dominant figure in a social setting that is defined as white, Christian, and Venetian.

Over time, however, as Iago’s lies take root in his heart and mind, Othello begins to believe that there is nothing he can do to make himself deserve his place by Desdemona’s side.  As Olson notes, “One of the first things Iago does in his attempt to accelerate Othello’s jealousy…is to remind him that his wife married outside her ‘clime, complexion, and degree’ (III. iii. 247)” (Olson 12).  Clearly, insecurities rear their ugly heads when Othello begins to doubt his place in the culture and social class into which his marriage to Desdemona has brought him.  This is evident from his soliloquy in Act III, Scene 3, when he says, “I am black /And have not those soft parts of conversation that chamberers have” (III. iii. 280-82).  He loses his confidence that he is equal to those of the higher classes.  The fact that Othello is a Moor, the only one of his kind in that culture and social class, thus increases his chances of developing feelings of jealousy, because Desdemona, as his link, is of significantly more value to him than if he were a white Venetian Christian himself.  This extra measure of jealousy that arises from the issue of Othello’s race adds another dimension to this argument that Othello became jealous due in part to Desdemona’s social status.  In this way, Shakespeare further reflects the early modern English view that the more valuable a man’s wife was to him, that is, the higher her social class, the greater the risk that he would develop feelings of jealousy when he began to perceive that he was losing exclusive possession of her.

Yet, even as Shakespeare incorporates into this play the early modern English view that Moors and other such races did not really belong in upper-class, Christian society, he seems to be at the same time subtly critiquing this view.  Othello only begins to have misgivings about his ability to maintain exclusive possession of Desdemona (and, consequently, about his worth as a member of her social class) when Iago begins lying to him.  Othello becomes a victim of Iago’s own envy and resentment.  Shakespeare leaves open the question of whether Othello truly deserved to be included into Desdemona’s social class.  Shakespeare seems to be hinting to his audience that perhaps Othello was a good man with many admirable traits, such as courage on the battlefield, strong leadership abilities, and a true, pure love for his wife.  Perhaps he did deserve his place by Desdemona’s side, regardless of the color of his skin.  In this way, Shakespeare portrays Othello’s jealousy arising in the way that his early modern English audience would have expected: Othello became jealous because he tried to join a social class that it was impossible for him to join due to his race.  However, Shakespeare subtly challenges these common beliefs by suggesting that Iago merely deceived Othello into doubting his own worth as a husband of Desdemona, and thereby driving him into a frenzy of jealousy.

In many ways, Shakespeare reflects the early modern English views of jealousy.  Othello, thrown into a chaotic whirlwind of passions, exhibits frenzied and contradictory thoughts and behaviors.  The lies of Iago bring out his insecurities that he does not really belong in the social class into which his marriage to Desdemona has brought him.  These insecurities are compounded by the contemporary views of his Moorish race.  His fear of losing Desdemona nearly drives him mad, because she is his only link to white, Christian, Venetian society.  By the end of the play, however, Shakespeare leaves his audience disturbed by Othello’s fate, and questioning their own preconceived views of cultural outsiders such as Othello the Moor.

 

 

 

Works Cited

Bacon, Francis. The Essays or Counsels, Civil and Moral. Othello. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Kim F. Hall. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. 338-40. Print.

Burton, Robert. Anatomy of Melancholy. Othello. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Kim F. Hall. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. 335-37. Print.

Hall, Kim F., ed. Othello. By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. Print.

Olson, Rebecca. “‘Too Gentle’: Jealousy and Class in Othello.” Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies, vol. 15, no. 1, 2015, pp. 3-25. Project MUSE, doi: 10.1353/jem.2015.0006. Accessed 16 Apr. 2017.

Shakespeare, William. Othello. Ed. Kim F. Hall. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. Print.

Varchi, Benedetto. The Blazon of Jealousy. Othello. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Kim F. Hall. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. 330-34. Print.

Wright, Thomas. “The Passions of the Mind.” Internet Shakespeare Editions, edited by Jessica Slights, modern ed., University of Victoria, Apr. 16, 2017, internetshakespeare.uvi c.ca/do c/WrightPassions_M/complete//#about. Accessed 17 Apr. 2017.

Hamlet short paper

Cadet Will Reeves

4/10/17

Help Received: See works cited

 

Short Assignment on Hamlet

Part 1

According to Christians standards of morality and English law in early modern English thought, suicide was a sin and a crime against oneself.  However, English writers and playwrights offered varied and complex perspectives on suicide (Jordan 212).  In A Custom of the Isle of Cea, Michael de Montaigne outlines several different non-Christian views on suicide.  The classical view holds that one’s life is subject to the treatment one receives at the hands of others; however, one has control over one’s death.  Moreover, common medical practices include one’s body being cut and bled, so if one has a very serious disease or issue, one must take extraordinary measures to combat that disease or issue, such as the taking of one’s own life.  Besides, one’s body is one’s own property, so one is not committing theft by taking one’s own life.  However, de Montaigne also presents the view that one’s life is not in fact one’s own, but instead ultimately belongs to God, and must be used for his glory.  De Montaigne offers a third views that excuses or justifies suicide in extreme cases, such as when one is facing an imminent threat of rape or torture (de Montaigne 213-14).

The Protestant clergyman John Sym offered an explanation for a person’s motivations to commit suicide.  Sym posits that a person may be overcome with frustration or disappointment toward some event in their life.  For example, a person may be unable to find a suitable sexual partner, or those already married may find that their spouse frustrates their desires in some way.  However, Sym condemns this as an “unreasonable” motivation to kill oneself.  Lastly, Sym suggests, a person may commit suicide because they have undergone some experience that has caused them unbearable shame (Sym 215-16).

In Biathanatos, the poet and clergyman John Donne challenges the teachings of the Church and the laws of England prohibiting suicide.  Donne draws the concept of the law of self-preservation into his argument.  According to Donne, the law of self-preservation means that one is always trying to obtain what it best for oneself.  In some cases, this may mean killing oneself to escape some great evil.  If one brings about a “greater good” for oneself through death, one does not violate the law of nature.  Donne justifies this with biblical teaching.  He refers to the commands of Jesus to his followers to “hate” their own lives.  That is, Christians must be willing to sacrifice their lives for God and his glory.  Thus, in some cases, Christians should act on this
“hatred” of themselves by killing themselves (Donne 217-19).

 

 

Part 2

In his soliloquy in Act III, Scene 1, Hamlet engages in a debate with himself over whether he should end all of his present earthly troubles by taking his own life.  Hamlet concludes that it is cowardice that makes men choose the harsh circumstances of earthly life over the great unknown of what lies in wait for them after death.  In this soliloquy by Hamlet, Shakespeare presents a new, twisted view of suicide that likely would have surprised his original audiences.

Early in the play, it becomes clear that Hamlet’s outlook on life in general is very bleak, which is understandable concerning his circumstances.  Hamlet does not seem to see any joy or pleasure in living.  He produces a long list of things that make life miserable: “The whips and scorns of time, /Th’ oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, /The pangs of disprized love, the law’s delay, /The insolence of office, and the spurns /That patient merit of the’ unworthy takes” (III. i. 70-74).  Thus, for Hamlet, death is a welcome thought.  In fact, he calls death “a consummation devoutly to be wished” (III. i. 63-64).  Suicide would then be a means for a man to finally obtain rest and peace.  Of course, the most common early modern English view was that suicide was a sin against God and crime against oneself.  God called on people to withstand “the heartache and the thousand natural shocks /Which flesh is heir to” because their lives were not their own, but his, and were intended to bring him glory (III. i. 62-63).  Suicide, then, was a selfish act that deprived God of a human life that he created to serve and praise him.  Moreover, this selfish act could be interpreted as cowardice, because, through suicide, a person chooses flee from the trials and tribulations of life instead of persevering through them so that God might be magnified.

In Hamlet’s soliloquy, however, Shakespeare does not present suicide as an act of cowardice.  Instead, for Hamlet, it is cowardice that prevents him from carrying out the act of killing himself.  He wonders aloud, “Who would fardels bear, /To grunt and sweat under a weary life, /But that the dread of something after death…/Makes us rather bear those ills we have /Than fly to others that we know not of?” (III. i. 76-78, 81-82).  From Hamlet’s point of view, it is clearly reasonable that a man would rather escape the harsh circumstances of his life by bringing about his own death than simply endure his earthly tortures.  It is his own fear, that is, his own selfish desire not to experience suffering, that restrains him from taking a risk that could result in even worse suffering than what he is experiencing on earth.  Therefore, Hamlet laments, “Thus conscience does make cowards of us all” (III. i. 83).  For Hamlet, it is not some noble higher calling to continue living for God’s glory that stops him from plunging his “bare bodkin” into his heart—it is instead his own cowardice (III. i. 76).

 

 

Works Cited

De Montaigne, Michel. A Custom of the Isle of Cea. Hamlet. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Constance Jordan. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 213-15. Print.

Donne, John. Biathanatos. Hamlet. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Constance Jordan. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 217-19. Print.

Jordan, Constance, ed. Hamlet. By William Shakespeare. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Constance Jordan. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. Print.

Sym, John. Life’s Preservative against Self-Killing. Hamlet. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Constance Jordan. New York: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. 215-16. Print.

Measure for Measure short paper

Cadet Will Reeves

3/27/17

Help Received: See works cited

 

Short Assignment on Measure for Measure

Part 1

Early modern English perspectives on resistance to the monarch varied widely.  Some writers emphasized the fact that subjects’ ultimate duty is to obey God, and thus that if the monarch’s commands are in opposition to the law of God, subjects must obey God.  According to Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, written by an author with the pseudonym Stephanus Junius Brutus, subjects would not be acting wrongfully toward their monarch if they refused to submit to a law or command of his that contradicted the law of God.  In A Dialogue Concerning the Due Privilege of Government in the Kingdom of Scotland, George Buchanan, who tutored King James I when James was a child, espoused the idea that when a monarch takes his oath of office, he is bound by contract to rule in accordance with the kingdom’s established laws.  If he violates these laws, the contract is void, and his subjects are no longer bound to submit to him (Kamps and Raber 142).  In addition to the concept of the contract, Buchanan also notes that it is justified to use violence against thieves caught in the act as well as against the armies of other countries when a dispute can be settled no other way.  He posits that a tyrant is an “enemy” of the people, and thus the use of violence against him is justified (169-70).

Other thinkers, however, posited that the commands of God and the commands of the monarch are one and the same.  Subjects who resist their monarch also resist the will of God.  Even the commands of tyrants are backed by the authority of God, and God often uses tyrants to punish a people for their wicked deeds (Kamps and Raber 142-43).  Such thinkers would likewise condemn the act of slander against the king by any of the king’s subjects.  The suppression of free speech by the monarch was common in early modern England.  King James I was especially vehement in his condemnation of slander against the monarch, comparing it to crimes such as murder and incest (Kamps and Raber 145).  Because slander against the monarch is the first step toward rebellion against him, many monarchs and thinkers at that time viewed it as acceptable for the monarch to harshly punish those who spoke ill of him.

 

 

Part II

When viewing the story of Measure for Measure through the eyes of Isabella, Shakespeare seems to support the idea that opposing or subverting the authority of a monarch is justified if the monarch governs wickedly.  Shakespeare sides with the thinkers of his day such as George Buchanan, who believed that subjects’ ultimate duty is to obey God, and thus that if the monarch’s commands are in opposition to the law of God, subjects must obey God.  Isabella proves herself dutifully obedient to what she perceives as just authority, but also resorts to any means necessary to subvert the authority of Angelo when he acts maliciously toward her.

Isabella is clearly the type who does not normally resist authority.  In fact, she wants a life governed by strict authority.  That seems to be why she is entering a nunnery: she craves its rules and regulations.  After the nun Francisca explains to her all of the restrictions of the nunnery, Isabella asks in an almost disappointed manner, “And have you nuns no farther privileges?” (I. iv. 1).  She clarifies, “I speak not as desiring more, /But rather wishing a more strict restraint” (I. iv. 3-4).  Moreover, as much as she would not like to see her brother put to death, she acknowledges that the law of the land is just.  In the beginning of her first conversation with Angelo, she seems to resign herself to the fact that her brother must die, exclaiming, “O just but severe law!” (II. ii. 45).  Thus, she normally embraces the rules which those in authority place upon her, even if they cost her her brother’s life.

However, when Angelo makes his wicked deal to Isabella that would save her brother’s life at the cost of her own honor, her subsequent opposition to him goes beyond resistance: She pursues a personal vendetta against him.  She cannot stand to allow Angelo get away with punishing Claudio for the same crime that he himself intends to commit.  She laments in anger, “O perilous mouths, /That bear in them one and the selfsame tongue, /Either of condemnation or approof, /Bidding the law make curtsy to their will…!” (II. iv. 173-76).  The things she is willing to do after Angelo’s horrifying offer is surprising for a woman who intended to live a pious life as a nun.  She is highly intrigued by the Duke’s plan involving Mariana, and complies with enthusiastic zeal.  She is instrumental in making the arrangements such that Angelo accidentally has sex with Mariana instead of she herself.  Nor does she hesitate to slander Angelo to the Duke’s face, calling Angelo “the devil” (V. i. 30), an “adulterous thief, /An hypocrite, a virgin-violator” (V. i. 42-44), and an “archvillain” (V. i. 60).  She goes even farther than slander, though, by threatening Angelo on several occasions.  On the first occasion, she threatens him to his face that she will expose to everyone the disgusting deal that he has offered her.  Also, when the Duke tells her that Claudio has been executed, but entreats her to be calm and patient nevertheless, she explodes with fury, “O, I will to him and pluck out his eyes!” (IV. iii. 106).  Angelo becomes a despicable character, and Shakespeare portrays Isabella and her resistance to Angelo in a generally favorable light.

Thus, it becomes clear that Isabella believes true justice is rooted not in obedience to earthly rulers, but in a transcendent standard of justice that comes from God.  From her very first interactions with Angelo she emphasizes that it is a right for a monarch to hold power, but wicked for a monarch to abuse that power.  She pleads with Angelo, in words that would prove to be prophetic, “O, it excellent /To have a giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous /To use it like a giant” (II. ii. 112-14).  Later, she remains firm in her conviction that Angelo’s actions have been unjust, and is desperate for true justice that will hold Angelo accountable, and punish him.  She gets on her knees and begs the Duke to give her “justice, justice, justice, justice” (V. i. 26).  By having the audience sympathize with Isabella’s resistance to Angelo and her pursuit of true justice, Shakespeare upholds the early modern English view that a subject’s first duty was to obey God and his commands, and to resist an earthly monarch who contradicted those commands.

 

 

Works Cited

Buchanan, George. A Dialogue Concerning the Due Privilege of Government in the Kingdom of Scotland. Measure for Measure: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Ed. Ivo Kamps and Karen Raber. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. 168-70. Print.

Kamps, Ivo, and Karen Raber, ed. Measure for Measure: Texts and Contexts. By William Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. Print.

Shakespeare, William. Measure for Measure. Ed. Ivo Kamps and Karen Raber. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. Print.