The first essay that we wrote for ERH 421WX- One Text: Frankenstein was a Critical Review of “Frankenstein”. My essay consisted of the major themes that I recognized in the Novel. These essays were the necessity of developing what you create, and the necessity of being responsible not only for what is yours, but also for all other beings. These messages are seen throughout “Frankenstein”, particularly by Victor Frankenstein’s lack of responsibility for the creature turning the creature into a monster that only knows hate and vengeance. I applied these concepts to the modern world, stating that while scientific advancement is a good thing, we must be cautious and constantly make sure that modern advancements are regulated and controlled so as to not get out of hand.

“The Gentleman’s Magazine”. 88: 334-335. April, 2018.             http://www.rc.umd.edu/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/gentlemansmag

“The British Crititc”. N.S. 9:432-48. April, 1818.

https://www.rc.umd.edu/reference/chronologies/mschronology/reviews/bcrev.html

Nicholas Schweers

LTC Ticen

10/5/18

Critical Review: Frankenstein

 

When you drive through rural Ohio, you see signs, painted barns, banners still standing in memorial of the Bicentennial celebration of Ohio becoming a state. Many Ohionians are (or at least pretended to be) proud of their state. It is their heritage. It is a common bond that, to some extent, they all share. It is this same rural area in which we can, and should, review the ideas of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”. This year, 2018, happens to be the Bicentennial of her publishing this most famous and timeless work of art. The lessons that she taught us in her work are not to be diminished. Two of the main messages from “Frankenstein” are particularly relevant in these small rural communities in Ohio, around the United States of America, even around the world. These lessons are that men need to be responsible and careful with their creations and their studies.

In the first few years of its publication, “Frankenstein” received many different critical responses. Some reviews were positive. In “The Gentleman’s Magazine”, one or two authors wrote of their appreciation of Shelley’s writings. They greatly praised the beautiful descriptions of scenery, and several other facets of her writing in which she excels, going as far as to praise Victor as “a Noble Poet”. Many other reviews were… not so positive, to put it lightly. “The British Critic (TBC)” wrote one of the more brutal reviews of “Frankenstein”. This article, as well as others, found the first fault in the darkness of the story. They said that it was too dark and twisted for there to be any real profit to reading the book. The other issue that most critics had with Shelley’s work is that Mary was a woman. “Frankenstein” was written when women had little to no rites. TBC said, “The writer of it (Frankenstein) is, we understand, a female; this is an aggravation of that which is the prevailing fault of the novel… and we shall therefore dismiss the novel without further comment”. Thankfully, many of the concepts which Shelley portrayed in “Frankenstein” are still relevant, and two hundred years removed, we can view the book objectively. By not shutting the book down for disagreeing with the patriarchy or with strict religious restrictions, there is much to learn from the story.

The “Frankenstein” story takes place in the late 1700’s. This is a turbulent time, with the French Revolution taking place before and around it, women’s suffrage starting, and racism still being relevant throughout the world. But this is also a time of great discovery and the re-invigoration of the sciences. All of these factors lead to Victor Frankenstein’s infatuation with the art of animating life through the use of new technologies such as conducting electricity. Through his countless hours and nights without sleep, Victor finally reached the climax of his research. He created a perfect being out of many corpses. With his research, he bought this mix and matched creature to life. As soon as the creature was animated, Victor was terrified, and fled the poor man. This man, without a parent to teach him how to function, relies on pure instinct, becoming more of a creature than a man. Because the creature had no guidance in life, he grew to cause great harm and strife for Victor and his entire family. Which is where the story comes to relevance in the modern era.

Many people view scientific advances as a positive thing, and in many cases they are. Regardless of how positive or revolutionary the immediate effect of the new research is, there should always be constraints or precautions when passing through unchartered territory. When Victor did not prepare for the effect of the creature coming to life, he turned the creature into a monster. Without proper guidance, the creature became a murderer. Modern research and technology can and should be seen the same way. For example, smart phones are a magnificent technology, but there have been countless of personal security breaches every year resulting from the lack of preparedness of phone making companies. Another example is GMOs. Those countless corn fields in Ohio, while beautiful and necessary, are quite a creature of their own. There is not enough data on the effects of their genetic mutation on those who eat it. The public does not know much about the restrictions put on companies that change the very makeup of what we eat. This technology could easily get out of hand, and even abused, in order to effect the people that it is feeding. There are countless example of this, more coming to light each day. Victor’s mistake that lead to his great suffering is the perfect example of the necessity of precaution, development, and care.

As you can (hopefully) see, this book remains entirely relevant over two hundred years after it was published. Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein” hits on many contingent issues, which were just as valid back then as they are now. We live in a time where scientists are working on creating life from nothing. In order to understand what kind of effect this would have, it should be a necessity for all scientists working on that project to read “Frankenstein”. In fact everyone should. Not only could “Frankenstein” potentially cause someone to make a decision that will save lives (instead of recklessly experimenting), but it is also a very enjoyable book. As “The Gentleman’s Magazine” wrote, it is a very beautifully written, descriptive, and exciting book to read. Unless you are a sexist, or easily scared and or offended, I would highly recommend reading “Frankenstein” (all the way through) to anyone. I believe that if someone puts in the effort to read this book, it will grasp them, entertain them, and help them think about the dangers of acting without preparing, and inspire them to take better care of others. Those skeptics or people just wondering whether they should read “Frankenstein”, I highly encourage you to do so. As you can see, there is much that can be learned from a beautiful, enjoyable, and well done book such as this.

Nicholas Schweers
Maj Brown

12/12/18

Literature Review

 

Research Topic:

For this Capstone, I intend to find the best COA (Course of Action) for the people of the United States to resolve difficult issues, such as the Collin Kaepernick kneeling for the National Anthem. I intend to use the ideas on Greek Tragedy from Hegel’s “Aesthetics” to help me understand the division in the country, its effects, and possible solutions. I then intend to analyze political party ideas about the issue, using a multitude of sources to get a general idea from both sides.

Research Questions:

For such a bitterly dividing issue, where are the party lines drawn, why is there so little legitimate discourse between sides, why are there such definite lines, how can these lines be broken down into discourse and compromise.

 

Carroll, Charlotte. “NFL Says Social Justice Issues Raised By Colin Kaepernick ‘Deserve Our Attention and Action’”. NFL. September 04, 2018.

 

Charlotte Carrol, a reporter from the NFL, wrote this article primarily to inform those who watch or read from the NFL about the NFL’s position on the Kaepernick issue. While much of the Rhetoric in this argument seems to point towards the NFL handling this inappropriately, the NFL is handling this more reasonably than most people on either side of the argument. This article cites the NFL as promoting discourse, discussion, and peaceful talks between both sides. It seems that the NFL understands that compromise is the solution to this problem.  Citations such as this help me shape my paper, closing in the target group that I am looking to study. Instead of studying the NFL, I will look more deeply into those who seem completely opposed to Kaepernick’s views, most likely the far right activist groups that have such a large presence in social media.

G.W.F. Hegel, from Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art (1835)

Hegel was a prominent German philosopher in the 1800’s. In Hegel’s “Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art”, he provides his standard understanding of “Tragedy”, how the tragic hero is formed, and begins showing how Tragedy could have been avoided if the hero and the opposing side just sucked up their emotions and worked together, or even just talked. Essentially, Hegel states that true Tragedy stems from two equal and opposing ideas/actions that are both equally good. When they are pitted against each other, to side with one good would inherently mean that the other good is forsaken, resulting in a net loss. It is tragic, for if either side would have compromised, there would have been a much greater amount of good produces. Yet, since neither side compromises, there is destruction on both sides, and some amount of good is usually done, but it is done too late for the repercussions to be appreciated, for both sides have been grievously wounded in the process. The keys to avoiding these tragedies are discourse and compromise. I will use Hegel to evaluate the modern day National Anthem crisis, and hopefully find a way to peacefully and effectively resolve this issue.

Wagoner, Nick. “Collin Kaepernick Protests Anthem over Treatment of Minorities”. The   Undefeated. ESPN.COM News Services, August 27, 2016.

Nick Wagoner, a journalist for “The Undefeated” wrote this article largely to inform the pages followers of Kaepernick’s case. It seems as though he wrote objectively as to not offend either political side of his followers. This article largely goes over the reasoning behind Collin Kaepernick’s decision to not stand in respect for the National Anthem. It is his form of protest against the poor treatment of minorities in the United States. He could not stand for the National Anthem of a country that had minorities lying dead in the streets while their shooters barely get reprimanded. This article writes about Kaepernick but also those other Athletes who sacrificed their own careers in order to get their message across to the public. In many ways, the actions which Kaepernick took make him a sort of martyr for this social justice movement. This movement, unfortunately, has caused great debate in the United States, largely stemming from the fact that he chose to not respect the National Anthem which is a sign of the sacrifice’s and freedoms that Americans have made and enjoy every day.

 

Alexander, Michelle. “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness”.      The New Press, New York, 2011.

Michelle Alexander is a Lawyer that works primarily with minorities. In her experience, she has gone through a paradigm shift on her beliefs of racial disparity in the United States of America. She is quoted becoming almost bitter at a sign that stated that the United States of America was going through another Jim Crow phase as a whole. Throughout the continuation of her career, she slowly became more exposed to racial prejudice within the United States Government and society. This led to her fighting for her beliefs and attempting to pass laws and regulations that did not target people of color. Throughout the book she gave excellent demonstrations of the actions being taken against people of color, which is what I mainly used from her source for my essay.

She seems to have failed to view the topic from a conservative standpoint, not allowing her to grasp the picture fully from a conservative mind frame. Her ethos was hardly impacted due to the fact that she supported her claims with a cornucopia of information from databases, statistics, and her own personal experience as a social worker that worked primarily for the people that are being prejudiced against.

 

Houlgate, Stephen. “Hegel and the Arts”. Northwestern University Press, 2007.

Stephen Houlgate’s, “Hegel and the Arts” covered exactly what one would think. He focused primarily on Hegel’s views on Art and Tragedy. He effectively covered these topics, synthesizing a vast amount of Hegel’s dense and spread out information into fairly simple to understand concepts. He reinforced my understanding of Hegel’s Tragedy, particularly by making clear the concept of a “Family” versus “State” argument that is so essential to Hegel’s Tragedy. He also portrayed information on how Hegel sought to find a sort of solution to Tragedy, which is supplied by the Chorus’s ability to reason with the opposing groups as a sort of unbiased mediator, which could perhaps cause the groups to reason instead of take action with one another, therefore preventing the Tragedy.

One thing that made Houlgate’s analysis rather painful was the lack of citations he provided for his knowledge about Hegel. While doing my own research, I validated the points he was making, but it was incredibly difficult to sift through Hegel’s writings, whereas if Houlgate had cited his sources, it would have been far easier.

 

Todd, Brad. “Kneeling NFL Players Should Choose a Different Form of Protest.” Fox News,       FOX News Network, 24 May 2018.

 

I would start of by saying that one would expect less politically charged news, even if is from a party dominated news source. Brad Todd, author of “Kneeling NFL Players Should Choose a Different Form of Protest”, and a Fox News Journalist, wrote a rather hefty article on the National Anthem Protest. In his article, he vividly attacked the Protesters, particularly Colin Kaepernick, and even the Democrats that support him.

While I used to be of the same mind as Todd, his journalistic professionalism seems absent through the amount of pathos and ad-Hominem attacks he used in order to invalidate the points that were being made by the protesters. He cited very valid reasons on why the protesters should choose a different form of protest, but the manner in which he did it was so heavy handed with Conservatism and refute for the protesters that his ethos was all but torn down for me.

 

	Carrol	Hegel	Wagoner	Alexander	Houlgate	Todd
Poor treatment of people of color.	Protests about police brutality	n/a	“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag…”	80% of inner city blacks have criminal records (7).	n/a	n/a
Division between the Democratic party and Republican Party	Donald Trump Criticized Kaepernick section.	Family Vs State (Hegel 461).	n/a- shows division between people, but they are rational and are not specific to party lines.	n/a	Describes in depth the conflict between Family and State. (148).	“Those on the political left have recoiled…”

Nicholas Schweers

Maj Brown

9/21/18

Capstone Project Proposal

 

1- Basic Information

a- Nicholas Schweers

b- “Tragedy in America: How Reason can Bring Us Back Together”

c- Maj Knepper:

2- Background and Rationale

a- I am an English Major at VMI, but the courses that I most directly effect this project are Rhetorical Traditions (one and two), American Literature, and Philosophy.  Between my understanding of rhetoric and how it should be used properly, philosophy, and the philosophy/rhetoric behind tragedy, I believe that I am particularly well equipped to find solutions to tragedy-esque political issues. The main focus for this issue will be using rhetoric to convince two completely polarized groups to engage in rhetorical discourse with each other.

B- I am invested in this topic because it is so utterly important. Todays’ world is characterized as bitter, divided, harsh, and many other negative attributes.  One of the main catalysts for many of these issues is the complete disregard of the legitimacy of other’s opinions. In a world dominated by pathos-based arguments, there is no room for anything that does not agree with your own particular emotional bias. Without the ability to be challenged in thought and feeling, those with opposing views will completely polarize themselves and have to resort to physical action to bring about any change. The conflict between the NFL, and their athletes who seek to kneel during the National Anthem, is, and will remain to stay at a stand-still. While neither side is particularly more in the right or wrong than the other, the debate is tearing the country apart. The issues make it seem as though there is no way to compromise between the two groups. Hegel’s idea of Tragic hero’s and how their tragedies could have been prevented perfectly fit this model, and my familiarity with these traits will hopefully allow me to strive towards a more peaceful and tragedy resistant nation.

3- Project Proposal Abstract

A- Today’s world, dominated by a constant barrage of bad news, has failed to realize that rhetoric and logic are the common tools that allow us to make wise and efficacious decisions. Situations such as kneeling for the National Anthem could be greatly changed if the media’s use of pathos was not the soul dictation of the people’s minds. The people (mass media and its audiences) tend to not look at situations from all sides, focusing often on their own feelings, allowing them to make poorly informed, emotionally controlled decisions. Both sides use little to no arguments from their opposing views, creating a completely polarized argument which is almost impossible to settle. Hegel realized that decisions informed by emotion could often lead to disaster, particularly when they are made in opposition to another emotionally based, yet equally relevant idea. By understanding Hegel’s philosophical and rhetorical ideas on deciding between two (nearly) equal but opposite goods, people may be able to make rational decisions that will benefit society as well as not cause consternation throughout the nation. Focusing on the kneeling for the National Anthem, I will use Hegel’s ideas to show both sides of the argument, how they are both wrong, and how they are both right. As commonly found in Hegel’s dissection of two opposing goods, this debate comes down to a group you identify with (Family) and the greater good of all (Nation/nationalism). Both sides are founded in a protection of values, and desires of promoting peace and care for all. But since they are opposing, they are both causing consternation, fighting, and hate, all in the name of doing good. After dissecting both sides of the argument, I aim to find a way to resolve the argument most peacefully, and with the greatest outcome of good. This paper is an attempt to involve philosophy, rhetoric, and evaluation of the current events to find how to most effectively promote peace, prosperity, and most importantly agreement between two completely opposing ideas of the National Anthem in the modern day United States.

 

4- Preliminary Bibliography

G.W.F. Hegel, from Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art (1835)

In Hegel’s “Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Art”, he provides his standard understanding of “Tragedy”, how the tragic hero is formed, and begins showing how Tragedy could have been avoided if the hero and the opposing side just sucked up their emotions and worked together, or even just talked. Essentially, Hegel states that true Tragedy stems from two equal and opposing ideas/actions that are both equally good. When they are pitted against each other, to side with one good would inherently mean that the other good is forsaken, resulting in a net loss. It is tragic, for if either side would have compromised, there would have been a much greater amount of good produces. Yet, since neither side compromises, there is destruction on both sides, and some amount of good is usually done, but it is done too late for the repercussions to be appreciated, for both sides have been grievously wounded in the process. The keys to avoiding these tragedies are discourse and compromise. I will use Hegel to evaluate the modern day National Anthem crisis, and hopefully find a way to peacefully and effectively resolve this issue.

Wagoner, Nick. “Collin Kaepernick Protests Anthem over Treatment of Minorities”. The Undefeated. ESPN.COM News Services, August 27, 2016.

This article largely goes over the reasoning behind Collin Kaepernick’s decision to not stand in respect for the National Anthem. It is his form of protest against the poor treatment of minorities in the United States. He could not stand for the National Anthem of a country that had minorities lying dead in the streets while their shooters barely get reprimanded. This article writes about Kaepernick but also those other Athletes who sacrificed their own careers in order to get their message across to the public. In many ways, the actions which Kaepernick took make him a sort of martyr for this social justice movement. This movement, unfortunately, has caused great debate in the United States, largely stemming from the fact that he chose to not respect the National Anthem which is a sign of the sacrifice’s and freedoms that Americans have made and enjoy every day.

Carroll, Charlotte. “NFL Says Social Justice Issues Raised By Colin Kaepernick ‘Deserve Our Attention and Action’”. NFL. September 04, 2018.

 

While much of the Rhetoric in this argument seems to point towards the NFL handling this inappropriately, while it seems that the NFL is handling this more reasonably than most people on either side of the argument. This article cites the NFL as promoting discourse, discussion, and peaceful talks between both sides. It seems that the NFL understands that compromise is the solution to this problem.  Citations such as this help me shape my paper, closing in the target group that I am looking to study. Instead of studying the NFL, I will look more deeply into those who seem completely opposed to Kaepernick’s views, most likely the far right activist groups that have such a large presence in social media.

Nicholas Schweers
Maj Brown

12/12/18

Capstone Works Cited

 

WORKS CITED:

Alexander, Michelle. “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness”.      The New Press, New York, 2011.

Britzky, Haley. “Most Americans Don’t Think NFL’s Anthem Protests Are Unpatriotic.” Axios, 7             June 2018.

“Compromise.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. “Aesthetics”. Clarendon Press, 1975.

Houlgate, Stephen. “Hegel and the Arts”. Northwestern University Press, 2007.

Mindock, Clark. “All You Need to Know about Why NFL Players Are Taking a Knee and           Where It Came From.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 4 Sept.       2018.

SB Nation NFL. “The Real Reasons Why NFL Players Are Protesting and How Their Message    Gets Lost in Politics.” SBNation.com, SBNation.com, 21 Oct. 2018.

Todd, Brad. “Kneeling NFL Players Should Choose a Different Form of Protest.” Fox News,       FOX News Network, 24 May 2018.

“U.S. National Anthem Protests (2016–Present).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Dec.       2018.

“Writing@CSU.” Welcome to Writing@CSU.

Zarella, Anthony. “Why are so many conservatives upset about black athletes kneeling during       the national anthem?” Quora, 24 September, 2017.

Notes from In Class Discussions, peer reviews, Easybib.com, and Major Knepper’s course on Philosophy in Literature as well as American Literary Traditions.

 

Nicholas Schweers

Maj Brown

12/12/18

Capstone Final Draft

Our Nation in Tragedy

The American experiment is something that must be fought for and desired by all Americans. Without the support and the desire for a successful and unified nation, without a common goal, people will find and exploit their differences. Without something to pull us together, we will be divided… and divided we fall. That seems to be the current state of the American political climate. We have two parties that are fixed against one another in a perpetual stalemate. The American people are forced to pick one side, for there is no other relevant party or ideology at the moment. With being forced to side with one political party, many (if not most) Americans seem not to be able to have a legitimate conversation that goes against their beliefs. If someone does not agree with them, then the other person is their enemy or adversary. This is clear through the entire realm of politics in the United States. In the recent Kavanaugh hearings, there have been people calling for Kavanagh’s assassination. In response, Professor Blasey-Ford who was the accuser in the Kavanaugh case, has also received death threats. When Hillary Clinton was running against President Trump for office, she received the same threats. With threats like these coming from both parties, it seems unlikely that either party is willing to work with the other. My attempt, with this essay, is to use the contingent issue of “Kneeling for the National Anthem” to show how the American people are reacting, and to show how these same people can and should learn to conduct themselves in order to find a middle ground where both sides can get what they want, and neither side will have to act in a way that is harmful towards individual people or the entire nation.

Consistently through American history, there seems to have been a judicial prejudice against people of color, particularly African-Americans. This prejudice has been highlighted in recent years by the spreading of knowledge of the amount of police actions against African Americans over all other races. In some cases, policemen have been shooting innocent civilians, who are no threat and are unarmed. Michelle Alexander states in her book, The New Jim Crow, that “… in major cities wracked by the drug war, as many as 80 percent of young African American men now have criminal records, and are thus subject to legalized discrimination for the rest of their lives” (Alexander 7). In response to these shootings, and other forms of institutionalized racism, people have decided to take matters into their own hands. San Francisco 49ers national football player, Collin Kaepernick, was one of those individuals. He looked at the situation, and he looked at his platform for discourse, and he took his stand (or kneel). He decided that he would kneel for the National Anthem when it is played before games. Naturally, standing up for his beliefs is a good thing. But this issue alone served to divide the nation by its party lines. Republicans view kneeling for the National Anthem as disrespectful to what America stands for, and as disrespectful to those who have done their time defending those standards. At the same time, those republicans ignore the validity of Kaepernick’s ideas and the needs of the minorities in the United States. The Democrat side finds the action honorable, and finds it reprehensible that the conservatives would not support a movement that calls for equality and fair treatment of all. Later in this paper, I will go into far greater detail about what both sides believe, and why they believe it (Primarily focusing on Fox News reports on the protest for conservatives, and several different reputable media sources for the liberal views on the protest). For now, I will describe who gave me my main idea for resolving this issue, both good and bad.

Neither side of this argument seems to be willing to think outside of the box, and to listen what the other side has to say. Without listening, there can be no discourse, and that results in there being little to no change. We currently label these two sides as liberal and conservative, but this is not the first time that two opposing sides have caused issues. William Hegel, the main source for my argument, wrote often about this polarity in his book, Aesthetics. In his work, Aesthetics, he covers the concept of what is a true Greek Tragedy. I find that much of what he has to say about Greek Tragedy is relevant to modern day, real life political tragedies.  I will now dissect what Hegel had to say about Tragedy, and then will go to show how that information could be used in the current political climate, if not any situation that comes down to a disagreement that does more damage than it does good.

“In these passages, there is specifically emphasized the difference between (a) the immediate aims of life, which are related to physical comfort and provision for the satisfaction of primary needs, and (b) political organization which makes its aim the spiritual realm i.e. ethics, law, property rights, freedom, and community” (Hegel 461).

Hegel continues by stating how “Everything in this tragedy is logical; the public law of the state is set in conflict over against inner Family love (referring to (b) being in conflict with (a)). Stephen Houlgate wrote a wonderful analysis of Hegel’s Aesthetics, and ironically starts by talking about how Aristotle, not Hegel, viewed tragedy. Aristotle used Tragedy to reveal the vulnerability of human nature, how we can be wrong and cause damage even when we have the best intentions. He continues by showing how Hegel agrees with Aristotle, writing that Hegel believes that tragic drama results from humans “aestheticizing life. Tragic drama thus teaches us not that tragedy is unavoidable, but that it stems from confusing life with art” (Houlgate 146). This idea leads us to question what exactly Hegel’s beliefs were. Houlgate clarifies Hegel’s beliefs in art by saying that it is“… a form of ‘absolute spirit’ in which we articulate for ourselves what we understand to be the true nature of being and of human freedom in particular” (Houlgate 146). Essentially, Houlgate defines how Hegel believes that when a person acts alone, in accordance with their own search for freedom, instead of in accordance with the greater good of all, they are pursuing that art, or that freedom. In this world where one searches for their own greatest good, their own freedom, lies the body of the conflict.  In that world of art, “freedom is given concrete individual embodiment” (Houlgate 146). That embodiment, where the individual or “Tragic Hero” seeks only their own goal or their own belief in what is good, puts them directly on the course for drama through opposition of the “external nature” (Hegel 54).

In Tragedies, Hegel believes that  heroic individuals are motivated not just by personal passions, such as ambition or jealousy, but by an ethical interest or ‘pathos’ which , as the essence of their action, drives them on, has absolute justification and for that very reason is in itself of universal interest.” (Hegel 568). He puts it plainly that human’s desires, when not purely self-motivated, are typically strung between two different groups. The first group is the “Family”, which includes immediate Family, and the respect and good will that is necessary to take care of the Family. The other group is the “State”, which is where one’s aims are pointed towards the greater good of society, including patriotism, religious obedience, and political obedience. He says that the Family and the State are the “purest powers’ governing action in tragic drama” (Houlgate 147). Allegiance for either group stems from interests that are valid to all, particularly by the individual “tragic hero”. The fact that allegiance to either State or Family is valid and necessary for humans means that when the two are put at odds, there will be great tension. This tension is the pinnacle of Hegel’s Tragedy.

In Greek Tragedy (which Hegel uses as his primary examples for what a true tragedy is), we find many examples of this tension between Family and State. Houlgate elaborates,

“The fact that these ethical interests are essential to human freedom explains why they are associated by the Greeks with their gods. Greek tragic heroes are motivated both by an ethical pathos and by a religious reverence for the gods, and the conflicts that arise in tragic drama between ethically motivated individuals are also presented as conflicts between the gods themselves… if it (conflict) is not handled properly, however, the relation between gods and humans in drama can threaten the freedom and independence of dramatic characters- an independence ‘demanded by the Ideal of art” (Houlgate 148).

In other words, the ethical ideologies of the tragic characters coming into conflict with their own good, desires, or needs is the cause for tragic conflict. Hegel realized that in many ways, the ethical powers of State and Family can coincide, never coming into conflict. While that is true, Hegel also realized that there are times when people are forced to choose between the good for their Family, and the good for their State. He also realized that often when people do have to choose between the two ideologies, they become so absorbed in the side which they pick that they are no longer able to see the equally justified but opposing good of the other ideology. As Hegel said, “…there stand in battle against one another two interests, wrested from their harmony, and in reciprocal contradiction they necessarily demand a resolution of their discord” (Hegel 217). Hegel meant that tragedy occurs when there is a disagreement in what should be done between the two main ethical groups in one’s life… the betterment of their Family, or the betterment of the State. The tragedy itself comes from the fact that both sides are essentially wholly justified in their own right, but are ethically opposed due to some flaw in either group’s beliefs or understanding of that situation. The justification of both sides often causes individuals to act irrationally in order to defend their side at any means possible. The result is a conflict that ends in the loss of some general good, whether that be freedom, respect, sanity, or even life.

STATE VS FAMILY:

When looking at the National Anthem protests that have been taking place, and remain in place to this day, it is quite obvious where the lines are split. The liberal side argues in support of the protestors, for they identify with the victims of police brutality and unjustness. The conservative side argues in defense of the National Anthem, claiming that it is disrespectful to those who have died for the flag for someone to not honor them in the National Anthem. In this example, the left is most obviously paired with the “Family”, while the right is most obviously paired with the “State”.

FAMILY:

When Colin Kaepernick started sitting during the National Anthem (he started out sitting, then moved to the more visible action of kneeling for it), he was quoted saying, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color… To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder” (Mindock). This statement provides the strength and backbone for his entire argument, but he had to find a way to be respectful to those that have served. Kaepernick and his teammate Eric Reid discussed this with former player and Green Beret Nate Boyer. Boyer advised that they kneel. Reid stated that they chose kneeling because, “…(kneeling is) a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy” (Mindock). Other veterans had no qualms against kneeling for the National Anthem, noting the symbolism of the gesture as well as the fact that it is not a requirement to stand for the Anthem itself (SBNATION). Regardless, these players have put themselves at risk of losing their jobs or getting fined in order to make known the egregious abuses of the United States Justice System and Police in regards to people of color (Mindock). Their protest comes in response to the political climate they found themselves in, and was largely prompted by the establishment and relevance of political activist groups such as Black Lives Matter, which had begun to bring the deaths of people of color at the hands of US Law Enforcement to the light in the media. When the protest first started in 2016, groups such as Black Lives Matter (BLM) seemed to be at their strongest in the past years. This gave the players the perfect exigence to conduct the protest, but unfortunately, this rallying cry for equality did not have the effect he sought.

STATE:

Much of the conservative, or “State” side of this tragedy view kneeling during the National Anthem purely as a sign of disrespect. Brad Todd, a reporter for Fox News, one of the leading conservative political news agencies, stated, “Football players who “take a knee” – and in so doing visually signal they are giving up during a song that says America will endure – should consider whether their activity accurately demonstrates their own intentions to improve equality. Unless they believe we can’t get better as a society, they have the wrong metaphor” (Todd). He continues by saying “Anthem kneelers also must factor the effectiveness of this particular method of protest… (because) the one group of people most likely to experience personal shock from anthem protests is Gold Star parents…” (Todd). Essentially, they are stating that conservatives view kneeling during the National Anthem as a sign of disrespect towards all of those people who have sacrificed their time, bodies, or even their lives for the United States, and that only those who have experienced such losses will be effected. Conservatives also view kneeling as a sign of “rank ingratitude to refuse respect to the country that has given you so much… that (is) wholly responsible for the life you lead” (Quora). Many conservatives also think that the protest is a protest of the current administration, that the protest is purely the player’s way of pouting that their party did not win, and that they are just using their platform to perform cheap political stunts. Conservatives also managed to turn this into something positive for their agenda. As you can see above, the protest has been framed as a failed protest that symbolizes surrender as well as disrespect to the Nation and all of those who have served and suffered for it. President Trump capitalized on this in order to gain more support, often talking about how vile the protest is during his political rallies (Quora).

As shown above, the political rhetoric behind the protest is causing great division throughout the United States. Both sides have begun to treat the protest as a political stunt. The “Family” side is using Trump’s reaction as a way to show how he incites hate and violence, destroying any validity in the conservative viewpoints. The “State” side is ignoring the message being sent by the players, viewing it only as disrespectful to the State, and that those who support the protest are unpatriotic and hard hearted. In a situation like this, it is clear that no side can win over the other. The rhetoric has slowly devolved into “he said, she said” where both sides rebuke the other. Hegel’s ideas of tragedy clearly translate here. The “Family” and “State” have seemingly opposing values and are so blinded by these values that they will never be able to resolve the issue. Instead of peacefully talking about the issues, the two parties are called to think and act only for themselves. This creates a dangerous climate of complete and increasing division between the party lines. While this may not be a call to arms, it serves as another piece of the puzzle that may one day lead to some violent action between the two groups. If divisions such as this are not reconciled, there is great potential for increased suffering for people on both sides of the argument. So where do we go from here? What can be done to reconcile two groups that both just want what is best for themselves and those which they identify with? While it may not be easy to perform, it is simple in its entirety. Hegel gives us the answer, and that is to compromise.

Hegel states,

“… (the) Ideal in its activity, arises only through the reaction. Now this movement contains:

(a) the universal powers forming the essential content and end for which the action is        done: (State)

(b) the activation of these powers through the action of individuals: (Family)

(c) these two aspects have to be united into what here in general we will call character” (Hegel 219).

Essentially, Hegel is calling to reach the “Ideal” through compromise between State actors, and individual actors (e.g. Family actors). Compromise means “settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions”, meaning that a compromise is a decision where two groups give up part of their own belief in order to meet the greater end. To compromise also means “to find or follow a way between extremes” (Webster). Simply put, the conservatives and liberals, the “Family” and “State” must concede part of their own wills, so that both sides can be united in a consensus where they agree on a certain action. But this is not such an easy thing to do. With a topic as emotionally charged as the Kneeling for the National Anthem protest, people are prone to let their emotions get in the way of any clean form of discourse. So what can we do in order to have two emotional and adversarial groups find the middle ground? What we can do is look towards the Rogerian Argument.

ROGERIAN ARGUMENT:

Rogerian arguments are essentially when a non-biased party can mediate between the two adversarial groups. It starts with a mediator that, as neutrally as possible, states the issue, doing his or her best to show no bias towards either side. Next, the mediator listens to both sides of the opposing argument. He or she then takes the information and presents his or her views on it, providing the information from both sides again as neutrally as possible, while also showing how each side is thinking of it, and why. The mediator finishes by showing both sides how it would be more efficient and healthy to reach a middle ground rather than for one side to get their own way. As long as the mediator presents the information without bias, and with language that is neutral as possible, both sides should begin to see the validity in their opposition’s views, and should seek the middle ground (Writing@CSU). As you can see, the Rogerian Argument is the perfect synthesis of Hegel’s idea for resolving conflicts between the Family and State, for the Rogerian Argument requires an open rhetorical discussion that is concluded by (hopefully) a compromise between the two groups.

IMPLEMENTATION:

Knowing that some middle ground must be found for the betterment of all Americans, the question still stands on how to implement the Rogerian Arguments. Unfortunately, this answer is not that easy of an answer to implement. For healing to occur, this argument would have to happen at all levels of society. I believe that it must start at the top of the argument, with Collin Kaepernick having a Rogerian Argument with Donald Trump (because he has been the most active voice against the protest) on all media. If the two agreed that the protest and counter protest were not healthy for America and only leads to greater division and eventually may lead to civil strife, they would be far more willing to hear each other out. If they chose to take action in reforming the Judicial System at the same time as openly stating their pride and love for their country and countrymen, the civil strife caused by this argument would largely dissipate. Next, more junior political officials from both parties would have to meet and conduct similar arguments in their political spheres of influence, whether that would be in their town hall or in congress. Finally, the division must be resolved within us, the people of the United States. If we see the example of our leaders, and follow it, we would be able to have open and civil discussions on the topic. This man on man argument, if implemented by a majority of the people, could change the United States as a whole. It would make everyone more sympathetic to each other’s needs, leading to a unity amongst Americans that has not been seen. Instead of humans being concerned with themselves through Hegel’s idea of “art”, they would be concerned for each other, and would seek to help and support all other Americans rather than to divide and tear down what the opposing side has to say.

CONCLUSION:

In the current political climate of the United States, there is great division between the Republican party and its followers, and the Democrat party and its followers. Hegel’s idea of Tragedy being caused by the rift between two groups, the “Family” and the “State” can be applied to this climate. The liberal Democrats, who seem more concerned with personal matters and fair treatment of all, are connected with the “Family” side of Hegel’s argument. The conservative Republicans, who are more concerned with personal freedoms as well as National strength and power, are connected with the “State” side of Hegel’s argument. On most political arguments, the two sides are justified in their choices and actions, but are vehemently opposed to the other group’s ideas and values. This creates a climate in which no solutions can be reached that better society. Hegel states that this particular situation is what creates Tragedy. When neither side is willing to compromise their values at all, and do not seek a middle ground, the two sides will act against each other in a way that will end up in civil strife, greater division, and if allowed to go on long enough, some action that results in both sides having great loss of freedom, comfort, or even life. One can look at the riots throughout our country, or the murder of liberal protestors in Charlottesville, Virginia. This is just the beginning of violent action, but if this division remains unchecked, it can only grow worse. So in order to fix this division, Hegel argues that the two sides must learn to compromise. To do so, a Rogerian Argument must be held on all levels of politics and even as a whole throughout society. If both sides learn to actually engage their opposition, and to realize that their thoughts are valid, and that their actions are somewhat reasonable, the people will become more sympathetic towards one another. If we apply this to a very divisive issue, the protest where athletes kneel during the National Anthem, we can easily realize how efficient the Rogerian Argument would be. If this argument was conducted on all levels of society, it would be easy to recognize the fact that both parties are largely concerned with the protection of life, the respect of those who have suffered and died, and caring about those who are at risk. Once this synthesis is reached between the two groups, they could likely work together to change the United States in order to protect others, and respect those who have sacrificed for us.

I know, at least on a personal level, that this method works. When I came into this course, and chose this topic, I only supported the “State” side of the argument. When I began writing, I definitely showed my political bias in my writing. After realizing that, I had to rewrite my paper in a far more neutral manner. In this way, I became my own mediator. After conducting much research on the ideas of both parties, and finding the validity and reasoning behind both parties’ ideas, I became far more sympathetic to the “Family” ideals. I found that their protest is not in disrespect. But I also understand how that can offend those who have sacrificed so much for this country. As a whole, if the two sides met to talk in a neutral environment, they would be led to find a way to fix the issues found in the United States, and no one group would find themselves being disrespected or violated.

Works Cited:

Alexander, Michelle. “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness”.      The New Press, New York, 2011.

Britzky, Haley. “Most Americans Don’t Think NFL’s Anthem Protests Are Unpatriotic.” Axios, 7             June 2018.

“Compromise.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. “Aesthetics”. Clarendon Press, 1975.

Houlgate, Stephen. “Hegel and the Arts”. Northwestern University Press, 2007.

Mindock, Clark. “All You Need to Know about Why NFL Players Are Taking a Knee and           Where It Came From.” The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 4 Sept.       2018.

SB Nation NFL. “The Real Reasons Why NFL Players Are Protesting and How Their Message    Gets Lost in Politics.” SBNation.com, SBNation.com, 21 Oct. 2018.

Todd, Brad. “Kneeling NFL Players Should Choose a Different Form of Protest.” Fox News,       FOX News Network, 24 May 2018.

“U.S. National Anthem Protests (2016–Present).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Dec.       2018.

“Writing@CSU.” Welcome to Writing@CSU.

Zarella, Anthony. “Why are so many conservatives upset about black athletes kneeling during       the national anthem?” Quora, 24 September, 2017.

Notes from In Class Discussions, peer reviews, Easybib.com, and Major Knepper’s course on Philosophy in Literature as well as American Literary Traditions.

 

 

 

 

 

Nicholas Schweers

Maj Brown

12/12/18

Reflective Essay

 

ERH-481W, the English Capstone course for VMI seniors, has been incredibly useful for me. When I came to the Institute, I was an aspiring Biology major. Rat year grades determined that Biology was not my strong suit. During those first two semesters, two classes caught my eye, and those were the rat English courses. Those courses, ERH 101 and 102, were both focused on improving writing and an understanding of rhetoric. While taking those classes, I found out that English was not “easy” as most other majors call it, yet I also found that English courses were more rewarding to me than any other kind of course. Learning about rhetoric also fascinated me greatly, and in turn, I switched to English because I found it to be the best fit for me. I could not be happier with any choice that I have made in my academic career at the Institute. Being an English major has taught me hard work, how to pull all-nighters, basic organization skills, and many rhetorical tools that come in handy in every part of your life. The English Capstone has been the synthesis of this combined knowledge, and yet I still learned a lot while in the process of making my Capstone, showing me that learning is a continuous and everlasting endeavor for English majors.

While in the process of making my Capstone, I pulled from knowledge that I have developed in many English courses over my three and a half years at VMI, particularly involving my knowledge of rhetoric. It all started with ERH 101 which I took over the Summer Transition Program in 2015. That course introduced me to basic college level writing. One of the most influential moments in that course is when my teacher told the class to forget about the 5 paragraph format that has been drilled into our heads since middle school. By doing so, my mind was opened to the possibilities of my personal style, and the fact that I can write however I want in order to achieve the mission of every assignment thereafter. That was honestly one of the most useful things I have ever learned in my academic career. From there I was introduced to rhetoric, which instantly took over my mind. I found it so incredibly interesting that the way we write, the words we choose, and the appeals we make to our audience could cause your writing to be completely disregarded or completely absorbed. This put me on track to take the courses Rhetorical Traditions 1 and 2. These courses largely taught me about rhetoric and how to implement it in my writing. Over these courses on rhetoric, I fell in love with the topic. So when I came into my Capstone course, it was apparent that I would have to do something involving rhetoric. The other courses essential to my capstone were Philosophy and Literature, Fundamentals of Public Speaking, and Rhetoric & Public Address.

In major Knepper’s “Philosophy and Literature” course, I was exposed to how ethics are applied in literature. Many of the great stories that have lasted ages have done so because they are so ethically relevant. In this course, Major Knepper introduced me to William Hegel’s philosophy about Tragedy, which has been the main research component of my Capstone. Fundamentals of Public Speaking and Rhetoric & Public Address have both furthered my understanding of rhetoric and how it can be used to affect the masses that you are trying to influence. All of these concepts were heavily considered and used throughout the entire process of making my capstone.

My writing process for my Capstone was a little bit messy. Major Brown did a fantastic job setting deadlines that created a natural progression towards our final papers. She aided us in thinking and deciding on topics for our Capstones, with creating ideas, finding resources, drafting the actual project gradually, all the way up to the complete final draft, reflective essay, and presentation to the ERH department. While she provided us with a rather structured course, I struggled to find any sort of structure when it came to the project. I started off planning on doing a creative piece, then when I found that I could not do that (for I had not taken a creative writing course), I immediately turned to my depth of knowledge regarding rhetoric, and my interest in Hegel’s philosophy. I chose to find a contingent issue, and to apply Hegel’s ideas on tragedy (and how to prevent it) to that modern political argument. After talking with the class about some political issues, I settled on the National Anthem Protest.

Hegel shows how Tragedy is caused when two opposing groups have justified but opposing views on a topic or action. The Tragedy lies in the division that is caused between the opposing groups, and the groups’ actions which impose their will on each other, often resulting in some net loss of prosperity, freedom, or even life. It was easy for me to do research on Hegel’s ideas, and apply it to the National Anthem Protests, but my main issue came with trying to figure out who the opposing sides truly consisted of. While many of my classmates trudged along with their papers, I struggled to find out who to choose as the figureheads for these groups. Eventually, I disregarded that idea, and chose to use the Democratic and Republican parties as the two groups. Realizing this, it became obvious to me that the two parties are opposing groups with almost irreconcilable wills. The Protest, along with countless other dividing topics, are serving to tear the fabric of our nation apart unless some consensus is met between the two groups. Then came my next issue, the call to action (which Dr Kimsey teaches about in his Rhetoric & Public Address course).

Hegel said that Tragedy could be prevented if the two opposing groups reach some compromise. But that was the problem. How do you get two groups to get over their stubborn resolve about their differing opinions? The answer came to me in the form of an offhand comment from one of my Capstone classmates, then was elaborated upon by Major Brown. They taught me about the Rogerian Argument that was designed specifically for the purpose of reconciling two groups that ardently oppose each other. After researching the Rogerian Argument, I easily applied it to the National Anthem Protest debate. In the end, I called for Rogerian Arguments to happen on every level of politics, from personal, all the way up to Collin Kaepernick and Donald Trump hashing it out. If the two groups realize that their goals are the same, it is likely that they would seek to make that compromise. If they do not, the rift between American ideologies will grow and grow until Tragedy strikes.

Overall, in my Capstone, I applied my knowledge of rhetoric and philosophy, as well as my ability to research specific topics well, to create a Capstone that effectively calls the men and women of the United States to action. The skills that I implemented during this Capstone course are relevant in most all work places, and I have the ERH department to thank for that. I am confident in my ability to perform any writing tasks that lie ahead of me, and I know that the skills that I used in this Capstone are essential to being a good Marine officer, a good father, a good cop, and a good citizen. All of these things that I aim to be use these skills every day. I realize that I still have much to learn, just as I learned about different forms of argument and different ways of framing arguments while writing my Capstone. I look forward to developing this knowledge continuously, and I can thank my Capstone for that.

Works Cited:

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. “Aesthetics”. Clarendon Press, 1975.

Houlgate, Stephen. “Hegel and the Arts”. Northwestern University Press, 2007.

“Writing@CSU.” Welcome to Writing@CSU.

Notes from ERH-481W

Ideas from ERH 101-102, 201WX, 202WX, 207W, 323W, and 301

Advice from Maj Knepper (Capstone Adviser)

Schweers_ERH_Frankenstein_politicalcartooncompilaton-w50wwg

 

This essay was one of the most formative essays that I have written in my cadetship. It meets several of the requirements for the Student Portfolio, but I put it on here more importantly to emphasize its usefulness to me. This was the center of my capstone final, and has helped form and develop my own code of ethics and understanding of people that come from different viewpoints. This paper not only helped me in classes, but it helped me develop myself into a better person.

Schweers_ERH323_CriticalEssay-1jfthsg