My Light Themed Photos

 

 These are some photos that I put up because I find the light particularly pretty or interesting (apart from the sunflower that I just put up because it reminds me of warmer times). They were all just taken on my phone so nothing snazzy or edited.

First English Essay of A2. Identity and Development In 'Great Expectations'.

  

“Showing convincingly how characters develop and so achieve a sense of identity is an essential way in which novelists and poets engage fully with their readers.”

In ‘Great Expectations’ we are led through the life of Pip, a fictitious character that is an accurately and annoying portrayal of humanity. We see his mistakes, his regrets, his impulses and yet his genuine love for his much abused family. Pip’s character changes many times throughout the novel and holds an important moral with it about the corruption of wealth. In this essay I will be evaluating how central development to the story is when considering identity.

When considering the use of identity in ‘Great Expectations’ the question evokes an immediate response that argues the importance of characters that do not develop. Characters that remain solid in their identity engage our emotions with the strength of their convictions (whether for good or for bad). The character, Joe is a pivotal example of this as his simple and stereotypical traits have the potential to both annoy us and provoke our sympathy. Written with the same distinct dialect and ignorance that was present at the start. “if I have anythink to forgive.” Is a direct example that epitomises Joe’s character as from his dismissal of Pip’s apology we see he is written to be both ignorant and lovable as he seems unable to see any wrong in Pip or his behaviour. This allows the reader to fully engage with the characters through their stability and strength in their own identities.

Joe’s dialect and illiteracy is used as a constant here, not as a device of degradation but instead honour and permanence. In turn, Joe’s consistency rewards Pip’s return as we are left with the message ‘always remain true to those who have been true to us’.  Dickens was well known for attaching firm stereotypes to characters in his novels. As Joe was such a stereotypical working class Victorian character and Pip’s path is of a cyclical nature (starting working class and ending so) it is possible for us to assume that Dickens is encouraging social class reproduction and discouraging social mobility. During the early-mid-1800s a middle class was emerging as a result of industrialisation. Pip’s experiences with corruption in his drive for wealth may very well be Dickens’ own personal warning against social class aspirations and the betrayal and exploitation of working class culture. 

However, in order for Great Expectations to truly connect to and hold the attention of its reader, it was vital for Dickens to create a moral message through learning and change. Without Pip’s mistakes and struggles to form his identity, the novel would be void of a direction and the characters, so defined by their sole traits would be rendered useless when not tried by the challenges and changes of those in their surroundings. When Pip returns to Joe and Biddy after he loses his wealth he asks them to “receive my humble thanks for all you have done for me,” and repents for all “I have so ill repaid!” Joe then replies to Pip’s plea for forgiveness with “God knows as I forgive you, if I have anythink to forgive.” As ever here Joe remains a constant symbol of solidarity and goodness. Even though Joe is the character who encourages the reader’s empathy, the situation would not arise without the development of Pip’s character that allowed Dickens to confirm Joe’s consistency. Language is also used here to emphasise the goodness of Joe and Biddy as religious references are used repeatedly in this passage. Pip refers to them as “good church going” people and Joe says “God knows” in the above quote. This ultimately emphasises the role of learning as implications of the couple’s divine righteousness would heavily confirm the idea that Pip was making the right decision and was truly forgiven in a catholic country (as was England when ‘Great Expectations’ was published). This conveys the sense of completion and would be a heartfelt reunion for Dickens’ Victorian readers. Even though religious references are less relevant in today’s secular society we can still appreciate the sentiment of religious goodness and innocence as modern readers.

 Evidence can be found to support the importance of learning and change in the novel as without Pip’s lies about the convict (which can be perceived as an act of kindness or self-preservation), there would be no momentum for Pip’s becoming a gentleman, hence removing the potential for action in the plot. Similarly Pip’s continuous indecision about his visits to Joe and Biddy deceive the reader and stimulate hope that he will visit. As it is a subject of much torment to Pip, Dickens plays with the reader encouraging our attention as Pip has intention to visit, leading us to wait for this event, doubt it and criticise Pip. Even though we are engaged in frustration we are still engaged as chapter 28 begins with Pip’s determination saying he “must stay at Joe’s.” However three lines and three reported movements afterwards it was apparent that no such thing would happen imminently. Though annoyed here we are also held in suspense which was especially imperative in the initial publishing of the novel as a serialised story in a magazine.

Furthermore the use of character development enhances the reader’s ability to relate to the story as multifaceted characters that have the ability to change are far more realistic than simple stereotypes. This is essential to maintain the attention of the reader because the nature of these characters engage the reader and stimulate social changes that drive the novel forwards. The use of predictable characters includes Joe, Miss Havisham and Mr Jaggers. Each of these characters are stable and relatively unmoving throughout the novel. Though both Joe and Mr Jaggers move between rural and urban environments neither are comfortable, nor appear to fit socially outside their own environment. Because of this these characters are limited and we do not follow them throughout the novel but instead visit them. Such characters cannot lead central roles as they are not adaptable to the changes in the plot. Joe, for example is simply “wrong out of the forge, the kitchen, or off th’ meshes.” We therefore cannot see the full lives of these characters as Dickens expresses a realistic plot with changes driven by developing and adapting characters. Dickens uses Joe’s straightforward, simple character to deliver this truth that characters like himself cannot possibly be expressed fully without losing realism and halting movement. We can only be allowed to see such limited characters to this extent under the subjective narration of Pip.

In conclusion there are many factors to consider when deciding whether the development of identity is essential to the novel and the resounding success with its readers’ attentions. There are many factors other than identity battles that capture our emotions and interests. However, when truly questioning the ability for the plot to move forwards without unstable, changing characters we must question the same in society and how that transgresses into all situations. Characters that remain eternally certain of their place, position and intentions are impossible as we must be conditioned into the workings of society and have our own free will to inspire change both inside us and in our surroundings. Being one of the rare novels before 1850s to captivate the attention of the public with a child’s story, Dickens has taught his readers to assess their own naivety and how we must all grow and develop our ever adapting perception of the self.

 

 

  

Discuss two psychological theories of aggression (24mrks)

Aggression can be defined as a range of behaviours that cause harm to someone or something through verbal or physical actions. Bandura (1963) formed the Social Learning Theory as an extension of the traditional Learning Theory to explain these behaviours. Learning theory suggests that we learn by direct experience but Social learning theory claims that we learn by the example of a model (people around us). In recognition of cognitive factors a series of stages are considered, for example, Attention must be paid.

There are also key principles as the individual must form a mental representation. This means they will remember the incident in order to apply it only in similar events with appropriate rewards. This does not mean they will immediately repeat the behaviour, especially after observing significant consequences. Production of behaviour must also be considered as they will only repeat the behaviour if it is maintained by direct experience. If mental representations are successfully formed and they repeat the behaviour to experience punishments, the behaviour will not continue.

Bandura supported this theory with evidence from the Bobo Doll study. He studied children between the ages of three and five to test the influence of models and found that when children in the first condition were shown an adult model acting violently towards the Bobo Doll they were far more likely to repeat the behaviour than the children in the condition where they observed the model that ignored the doll. 70% of children in the non-violent condition showed zero levels of violence, which suggests that the children imitated the behaviour of the model. This supports the Social Learning Theory as the results show that the impact of an aggressive model produces a higher level of aggression in the children.

However it has been debated that the results lack ecological validity. The Bobo Doll is a toy that was designed to be hit and therefore the children may have been acting under demand characteristics as they thought this behaviour was expected of them. As a reverse statistic 30% of children in the non-violent condition still expressed aggressive behaviour, a significant amount. This devalues the evidence to support Social Learning Theory, suggesting that aggressive behaviours may not purely be caused by the example of a model.

A second theory of aggression is the Deindividuation. Zimbardo suggested that individuals act with aggression when their identity is hidden as this allows them to act outside the consequences of moral standards. Three contributing factors of this are the influences of: being in a crowd, in an altered state of consciousness and wearing a uniform or disguise. Prentice-Dunn and Rogers separated self-awareness into two types: public self-awareness in which people were concerned about their image and impact on others and private self-awareness in which people consider their own thoughts and feelings.

Watson supported this theory with his cross-cultural studies of 23 societies and their warriors. He found that when going to war, warriors who disguised themselves with tribal paint and masks acted with more violence towards their victims than those who fought without disguise. Without disguise only 1/8 tribe members were very violent, with disguises12/15 members of the tribe were very violent. This supports the Deindividuation theory as the tribe with a disguise to cover their identities acted far more aggressively than those without, as suggested directly by the contributing factors.

However there are issues with this study as it could be suggested that this theory is gender biased. Watson only considered men in his study and Cannavale et al (1970) found that females responded differently under deindividuation and increased levels of aggression were only found in men. This suggests that deindividuation only encourages aggression in men. Therefore it can also be argued that deindividuation is not the cause of aggression as not everyone acts aggressively when their identity is hidden. 

Furthermore neither theory recognises the impact of other approaches on aggressive behaviours. The Biological Approach would argue that hormones have a higher impact on aggression than models or identity as high levels of testosterone cause aggressive behaviours. This suggests that the Social Learning Theory and Deindividuation Theory are not correct when describing the cause of aggressive behaviour.

700

Hey everyone if you are interested in anything geographyie then take a look at my new blog: How The World Goes Round. Hopefully it should merit my predicted A that I am damned determined to get :P x

Chapter 18, 19 Great Expectations

The Entrance of Mr Jaggers

The group was not highly defensive of Mr Wopsle when confronted by Mr Jaggers. “we all took courage to unite in a confirmatory murmur.”  This was the only external response from the group. It does not encourage confidence in Wopsle though, but instead themselves. They had committed to the story and given the question, the response was more out of pride than defence. Wopsle is the only speaker but we begin to feel that he is very similar to the group as individuals they are without argument or identity, ultimately they all agree guilty with nothing more to add than the manipulation from the article. This is where we see a difference in Mr Jaggers though, not just from the group but from the response we expect. We see throughout the story that Jaggers is strong, assertive and intelligent in such a way that no consequence falls upon his head. Jaggers is in quite a threatening place to begin a conflict being in a bar with a group of working class men, yet the way he mocks Wopsle is without reserve, “repeated the gentleman bitterly” shows us that he is irrelevant of it.

This inspires awe and silence from the group as only Wopsle was “unfortunate” enough to have “gone too far.” From Pip we are told that “We all began to suspect that Mr Wopsle was not the man we had thought him” but this is only Pip’s perception in hindsight of his experiences with Jaggers. We can only assume this is reliable with supporting evidence of the silence of the group which rather suggests the same level of shock and dumbfounding as Wopsle, unparalleled to Pip’s assumptions about Wopsle’s intelligence.

Pip’s reaction to Mr Jaggers and his analysis of his purpose are automatic responses which only show the impact of Satis House on his life. “I am here!” I cried” is rather a dramatic response to a stranger and I perceive this only to be excitement. Pip seems to grasp onto the stranger so gleefully that we see his priorities clearly aligned. Pip unlike the others in the group stands out as he does not fit in their ideas and is more than eager to leave it. Even to leave with the stranger who had just crushed his friend on faith only of the connection to Miss Havisham. This lines up Pip’s path as a failure immediately as he forsakes the genuine characters to pursue a world which he does not understand. Pip’s mono mania for Estella allows the plot to take paths which others would not take for insecurity and lack of trust.

Pip appears quite excited about Jaggers and instantly links him to Miss Havisham which is foolish considering his many clients and the otherwise complications and mysteries of his character, always consistent. As the reader, the idea that Pip so immediately and absolutely connects this man's message with Miss Havisham only encourages us to reserve our own judgements as such mystery over the benefactor would be without use otherwise, and things are never quite that simple.