Dead Mens Path Theme Analysis Literature Essay

Dead Mens Path Theme Analysis Literature Essay Dead Mens Path is a short story written in 1972 by African Author Chinua Achebe. It is about Michael Obi, a young and energetic man excited about all things modern who is just assigned a position to run a traditional school. Not long into the job, he finds that along with his misguided zeal, ignoring the traditions of his people can have great consequences. Obi is a bright and enthusiastic young man who is excited to find out that he will be the new headmaster of a school that has been in desperate need of help for some time. Obi was considered a pivotal teacher and he and his wife are both forward thinking and eager to share the modern life with everyone. Chinua Achebe shows the Obis modern enthusiasm by writing: We shall do our best, she Obis wife) replied. We shall have such beautiful gardens and everything will be just modern and delightful He also shows Obis views of the traditionalist people by attacking their character referring to them as, these old and superannuated people in the teaching field. Of his two goals for the school, one was to make the grounds a place of beauty. An upcoming inspection was the perfect motivation to begin what he thought to be great improvements. In time the gardens blossomed with beautiful red and yellow flowers. As Obi is admiring his work, he comes across an old woman from the village who walks str aight across the flowers onto what Obe discovers to be an old faint almost unused path. Obi speaks to a teacher and finds out exactly what the path was used for. It amazes me, said Obi to one of the teachers who had been three years in the school, that you people allowed the villagers to make use of this footpath. It is simply incredible. He shook his head. The path, the teacher said apologetically, appears to be very important to them. Although it is hardly used, it connects the village shrine with their place of burial. Obi didnt care about the reason and for fear that the coming inspector may see people on school grounds who didnt belong, demanded that the footpath be closed off immediately regardless of warnings from the teacher. The path was then blocked with heavy logs and reinforced with barbed wire. A priest was sent by the outraged villagers to try and talk some sense into Obi, pressing upon him the significance that the path has not to just the villagers, but also the dead who walk the path.Look here my son, this path was here before you were born and before your father was born. The whole life of the village depends on it. Our dead relatives depart by it and our ancestors visit us by it. But most important, it is the path of children coming in to be born. Obi rejected the priests words and in mocking replied to him Dead men dont walk. he dismissed his ancestry and instead chose the modern way. The path remained blocked and a few days later a village woman died in childbirth. The villagers took that as a sign that if the path remains blocked they would suffer great misfortune. Believing that the mother would be unable to rest in peace and the child unable to walk the path and enter the world, the villagers became agitated and tore down a school building as well as everything used to block the path and the flowers planted to impress the inspector. When the inspector finally arrived, he was presented with grounds that were completely destroyed along w ith a headmaster who thought only about himself and erasing the past to become modern. In the story, with the descriptions of the pretentious headmaster and his lack of respect for the elders and their traditions the narrator clearly has taken sides with the villagers. Chinua Achebe writes, The whole purpose of our school is to eradicate such beliefs as that. Dead men do not require footpaths. The whole idea is just fantastic. Our duty is to teach your children to laugh at such ideas. The main point in question in the story is in reference to the villagers beliefs and customs and the importance it held in their lives. Obi was wrong in his thinking and in his methods, believing that he can just cut the people off from what in our time would be considered a funeral. When it comes to the destruction and rejection of something that was and is important to people such as traditions no matter how old the customs may be, nobody has the right to negate a persons background and nobody has the ability to remove a persons belief and substitute it with their own. An unfamiliar cul tures belief may seem fanciful but to those who believe it, it is as much a vital part of their lives as technology is in ours. The heart of a persons belief is in having faith although what you believe can never be proven. What happens in death is a perfect example of this. Nobody alive can know what happens after death so we are left with our imaginations to hope that our loved ones are in a better place rather than in the ground or left as ashes. People need that faith to carry on because at times the thought of never again seeing those people can be unbearable. Our ancestors traditions and customs are important because the only knowledge we have of things we have no proof on is in the things passed down for generations. Just as the story explained, the villagers were so strong in their beliefs of the path that when it became blocked they attacked the school and everything that was blocking the sacred path: The beautiful hedges were torn up not just near the path but right around the schoolflowers trampledone of the school buildings torn down The importance of a persons culture is more than just the faith of a single person, it connects a group of people who believe alike and allows them to work together with the same end results. As stated in Achebes Dead Mens Path, contemporary community shouldnt do as Obi and try to eradicate the core of a peoples beliefs which, with his mocking reply to the priest is just what he tried to do. Our duty is to teach your children to laugh at such ideas. It is important to remember and to honor traditions. Many people fight to keep their traditions alive, whether its an old woman making her 80th annual pilgrimage to a Mexican cemetery to light a candle at Dona Candelaria de Sapiens grave or Native American tribe members dressed in full ceremonial clothing dancing to celebrate the coming rain. In Achebes story, the people fought to keep the path free so that those who pass on can rest in peace and the traditions of the vill agers can carry on for generations to come, far beyond the lives of the priests, villagers and Obi.

George Herbert Mead Early Life Sociology Essay

George Herbert Mead Early Life Sociology Essay Higher Education Mead graduated from Oberlin College in 1883 and matriculated at Harvard from 1887-1888 where he studying philosophy and sociology and graduated with a Masters degree. Although he belonged to a deeply religious family, Mead became a devout naturalist and non-believer after attending college. After leaving Harvard, he participated in many causes and was an ardent activist of any progressive causes. He marched in favour of the womens suffragette and took part in several civic duties in Chicago. The Chicago Philosopers Club 1896 Mead was influenced by Charles Darwins Theory of Evolution which is evident in his theories as a naturalist. At Harvard, Mead studied with Josiah Royce who was a major influence in his life, and  William James, whose children he tutored. In 1888, Mead left Harvard and travelled to Germany. There, he studied with psychologist Wilhelm Wundt who was his influence for the concept of the gesture, which would soon be an important aspect of his work. In 1891 he married Helen Kingsbury Castle. He taught at the University of Michigan and then the University of California. Mead wrote intensively over a 40-year career, however he didnt publish any books. He published over 100 scholarly articles. Mead died of heart failure on April 26, 1931. Following his death, his students put together a collection of his notes, unpublished letters and lessons, and finally published a book of his thoughts and teachings. Epistemology Ontology He observed that people acquired knowledge about behavior based on what they observe and acquire from society. The principle of sociality is the  ontological  foundation of  Meads  concept. The distinction between mind and matter and that between consciousness and the physiological organism is a distinction which is drawn between contents which may appear on either side of the line. Mead noted that there is more than what meets in the eye in terms of human interactions. This means, that there are reasons behind certain actions, which can be brought out through micro-investigations of human interaction. People who influenced Mead Mead was influenced by his friend John Dewey who led him into educational theory. However Meads thinking diverged from that of Dewey and he developed the famous psychological theories of mind, self and society. This idea was also greatly influenced by Wilhelm Wundt; who Mead met when he went to Germany to study psychology At Harvard, Mead studied with an American idealist philosopher Josiah Royce who also was an influence. Mead was influenced by Adam Smith and thus identified the social act of economic exchange. In Meads writing I and the Me Mead takes William Jamess distinction between the I and the Me and develops it further. William James was a renowned pragmatist philosopher. The prominent sociologist Charles Cooley (A philosopher) also influenced Meads thinking. People who were influenced by Mead Herbert Blumer, a sociologist who studied at the University of Chicago was influenced by Mead. He took over Meads lecturing responsibilities and went on to chair the Department of Sociology at the University of California Berkeley. He is often referred to as the heir of George Herbert Mead. During the second half of the twentieth Century, Meads theory of symbolic interactionism was separated into two distinct branches : The Chicago school under Herbert Blumer and the Iowa school under Manford Kuhn. Both of whom were influenced by Mead. Norman Denzin and Sheldon Stryker also continued to develop the Symbolic Interactionism theory of Mead. Ervin Goffmans so-called dramaturgical sociology is also highly influenced by Mead. Major Publications Mind, Self, and Society (1934) The Philosophy of the Act (1938) The Philosophy of the Present (1932) Basic Sociological Concepts Double Centre of Gravity Taking the role of the other Self Development The Self The self emerges from social experience Individual selves are the products of social interaction and not the biological or logical preconditions of the mentioned interaction Hence The self is not part of the body, and it does not exist at birth Explaining further in the absence of social interaction (i.e. isolated children) the body may grow but no self will develop. Social experience involves communication and exchange of symbols Dog example A dog responds to what you do, but humans respond to what you have in mind as you do it. Social interaction involves seeing ourselves as others see us taking the role of the other (Mead). Double Centre of Gravity In Meads concept of the self, he expressed Double Centre of Gravity by dividing the self in to the I and the Me. The I and the Me The I and the Me are derived from the self. The Self is the relationship between I and Me The Me is the internalization of others perspective of ourselves the perspective we get of ourselves from how others treat and interact with us. The I is the part of us that responds to these internalized attitudes.   Explaining further the Me is the social self that takes into account the reactions of others, while the I is the indistinctive part of the self which has ideas and imagination and is independent to social norms. Taking the role of the other Mead suggested that socialization derived primarily from peoples ability to take the role of the other. Taking the role of the other means putting yourself in another persons place to think/reflect about yourself. Taking the role of the other helps to integrate the individual with organized social processes By taking the role of the other, Mead meant putting oneself in the place of another individual in such a manner that one arouses the same response in both. Self Development According to Mead, developing the self is learning to take the role of the other   The first stage is Prep Children imitate and begin to understand symbols such as languages and gestures The Second Stage is Play Children role-play and pretend to be another person. Play involves assuming roles of significant others, helping kids see the world from others points of view. The Third stage is Game Children, at 7 or 8 begin to understand others roles and responsibilities, making games possible. The fundamental difference between the game stage and its antecedent play stage lies in the childs ability to take the roles of multiple people at the same time Generalized Other The norms, values, attitudes and expectations of people in general; the childs ability to take the role of generalized other is a significant step in the development of a self. The individual defines his or her own behavior with reference to the generalized attitude of the social group(s) they occupy. Significant other An Individual who significantly influences someone elses life. i.e. Individuals who are most important in development of the self. (e.g. parent) MEADS CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIOLOGY Mead is one of the most influential and acclaimed sociologist of the 20th Century Praised by Critics throughout the world as a pioneer and a Stalwart Has had several books published posthumously about his teachings the individual mind can exist only in relation to other minds with shared meanings (Mead 1982: 5) CRITICISM THE END

to build a fire :: Papers

To Build a Fire To Build a Fire A Paper Jack London?s short story, ?To Build a Fire?, incorporates the struggle for a man and his dog to survive the forces of nature. The story also demonstrates how man is a creature of intellect and dog is a creature of instinct. Ignoring advice about traveling alone in the brutal Alaskan winter, the man begins his journey with his dog. Never realizing the ramifications of exposure to such brutal weather when temperatures are fifty degrees below freezing, he pushes forward, thinking he can beat nature and reach the camp before dark. As he continues his excursion, chances for survival diminish when many mistakes are made attempting to build a fire. Also, the ignorance and conceit of this man would not allow him to follow the dog?s instincts in the freezing weather. Therefore, he succumbs to mother nature and dies. Consequently, the forces of nature are greater and can outsmart a foolish man. In the story called ?The Necklace?, Guy de Maupassant wrote about an unhapp y woman, Mathilde Loisel, who desired the riches of life. However, she was married to a man with minimal wealth. One day Loisel, her husband, surprised her with an invitation to an exclusive social gathering. Instead of responding with glee, she only could worry about how she would look for the event. She took the little bit of money they had and purchased a gown. Then Mathilde borrowed a beautiful necklace from a friend of hers. At the end of this special evening she realized that the necklace had been lost. Her and her husband took out many loans to pay for the replacement. All of their earnings went to pay these loans. After ten years of hardship the loans are paid and she meets the friend who lent her the necklace. Mathilde finally finds out that the original necklace was not even made of real gems.

Human Creativity and Spirit :: History Essays

Human Creativity and Spirit ABSTRACT: Values provide evidence of spirit in human life. Spirit is a creative mental force for realizing values, a force which shows signs of a superindividual growth and decline, a life of its own. This paper documents the historic rise and decline of several waves of human creativity. I also consider possible factors that would account for the rise and fall: the presence of new material, social encouragement and/or patronage, temperamental egotism on the part of creators, the attraction of pioneering talent, or a collective or superindividual spirit. Evidence for the life and character of spirit is furnished by the historical rise and fall of waves of human creativity. Examples of such waves are classical music, the Italian Renaissance, the German Renaissance, Greek philosophy, Christianity, modern science. The concept of spirit is meaningful. Our experience of value requires it. What are the sources of value? What gives them their authority? Reason, social conditioning, biological drives based on natural selection have all been proposed as sources. There is a great deal of truth in these proposals. However, reflection convinces us that none of these sources is alone sufficient, and even the three working together are not enough to account for all the values that motivate us. We shall support this conviction by argument in due course. Spirit is a hypothesis, as yet in early stages of definition, which provides a ground for otherwise unaccountable value phenomena. What is spirit? Negatively defined, spirit is a susceptibility to values that motivate us through our minds but need no rational foundation, outstrip and overpower socialization, and have no findable relation to species survival. Positively defined, spirit is a creative mental force for realizing values, a force which lives in us as individuals and which shows signs of a super-individual growth and decline, a life of its own. In this paper I search for the nature of spirit and its values in a wide-optic synthesis of waves of creation. As this synoptic view must range over many specialties, it is bound to raise doubts and objections in the minds of specialists. One cannot be a specialist in all the fields I shall discuss; as the same time, someone must take an overall view. Nothing is more obvious than that unrelieved specialization leads to loss of coordination and direction; the community of scholars is replaced by a collection of quarrelsome property owners. I ask specialists to take my communication as something to focus and correct, and I hope it will serve them as a stimulus to panoptic thinking.

Look at the role of the manager in motivating staff in the care setting that I work for, which is a residential children’s home Essay

This essay will look at the role of the manager in motivating staff in the care setting that I work for, which is a residential children’s home. It will look at different methods of motivation that the manager can use and also the way the manager uses it. The way that they use it will depend on the type of manager they are as they could be either a theory x or y type, as defined by D Mcgregor 1960. For the purpose of this essay we will look at the line managers as they have most contact with staff. In order to run an effective home the manager needs to not only ensure that they have a sound structure in place to deal with the day to day running of the home but to also ensure that the staff are motivated to do the job. In respect of the day to day running of the home there will be set procedures in place, that will have to be adhered to by all of the residential homes within RCT in regards to budgets, the manner in which children are admitted, contact with other agencies and so on. Within the home there will be an officer in charge and then seniors. The seniors are your line managers and have the most contact with staff it is their responsibility to ensure that staff are happy in their work and to ensure that there are no problems. The officer in charge will be responsible overall for staff along with the rest of the procedures mentioned earlier. The way that the manager motivates their staff will vary depending on the type of manager in a particular home. If you have a line manager who is a theory x manager this can have an effect on staff as they may not feel able to talk to the manager about things and discussing things is vital in this particular job, as being able to talk about things that affect the children and yourself within the environment you work contributes enormously to the happiness of the children. And the ultimate aim in the home is to provide a stable home for the children. A theory X manager will believe that as individuals you need to be told what to do. This does not then allow for confidence within yourself in regards to your development within the job to develop, as you will worry about what they will think about your work .It would also result in you needing to check everything through with them before you make a decision. This can have long reaching affects as the manager is not always available and as staff you have to make daily decisions in regards to the children and their welfare. On the other hand a theory Y manager will believe that as individuals and as staff that you are capable of making decision for yourself this can lead to them passing on more responsibility to the staff for various tasks within the home. This is something that is dome successfully in beddau with staff having taken responsibility for a number of different things such as doing the weekly menu, ensuring that the training file is up to date, ensuring that the accident, missper and sanction books are updated regularly these along with a number of other tasks done by the staff singularly might not look much but as a whole they contribute greatly to the homes effectiveness. This also show staff that their capabilities are noted it also allows for staff development as you are gaining experience in a number of different aspects of the work done at the home which in itself is good for motivation. This is supported by Fredrick Hertzberg who says if you want someone to do a good job, â€Å"then give then a good job to do† it does not matter the size of the job but that the staff feel appreciated and valued and that you have belief in their abilities. Although financial and physical resources play a big part in the running of a home the greatest contribution is made by the human resources, i.e. staff this includes all members from the domestic to the officer in charge. If the staff are de-motivated for whatever reason then this has an effect on the smooth running of the home. The human relations school of management 1960/70’s support this as they say that workers take along with then a number of different things, ideas, knowledge, intelligence, experience, skills humour, expectations and beliefs. In order for these to be utilized effectively then the manager has to be aware of staffs strengths as well as their weaknesses. This can be achieved through supervision. If supervision is used correctly it can be a good motivator for staff. If done incorrectly it can result in further de-motivation. The way in which it is done will again depend on the type of manager. Supervision in itself is not a motivator but a hygiene factor get it right and it will stop your staff becoming ill. I.e. de- motivated. Get it wrong then you have problems as staff will become de-motivated which will result in then doing things wrong or not at all and this will have a detrimental effect on the home. Other hygiene factors that can have an effect on staff are the working conditions salary, interpersonal relations and company policies .As with the above they will not motivate the staff but help to improve the conditions that they work in. this will then lead to their lower needs being met, as defined by A marslow, in his pyramid of needs. He says that in order for a person to reach self-fulfillment they have to meet the different needs in their life as set out in the pyramid. Within the work situation the needs will be met through a number of different way as illustrated appendix1. Steers and porter 1991 suggest that the various organizational factors illustrated can be used to satisfy the different needs. Obviously outside of the jobs the needs will be met in a different way, to a certain degree. The aim of the supervision is to get the work done well, support staff and to encourage staff development .The three strands of supervision are inter wound if you are able to help staff develop by offering then support then this will lead to better work. If one strand of the supervision is weak then the rope is weak. Which could then lead to de- motivation instead of motivation as already mentioned. A good line manager during supervision will not only point out where you are going wrong but will look at what you have achieved in relation to your job no matter how small it might be, it could be something as simple as having picked up a mistake in one of the books which if not rectified could have had an effect on the children or it might be that you have handled a situation with one of the children that resulted in then not harming themselves. A theory X manager would not tell you that you had done well in that instance, as they would say it was your job to deal with such an incident. And even though that is the case, if you just thought like that when dealing with the incident the you would not be giving your all to the job. So for a line manager not only to recognize what you have done but also to make you aware that they recognize it is a huge motivator. The second strand which is support can be met in a number of ways during supervision and on a daily basis. Support can be something that needs to be given when an incident has occurred at the home as above or when something personal is affecting your work .The member of staff receiving support must be able to trust in their supervisor as this will make it easier for them to talk about what is affecting them will then lighten the burden. This trust and also friendship to a certain degree will again depend on the type of manager you have. A good supervisor will also recognize when they are not able to support you and be able to refer you to someone who can, be that another member of staff or possibly a counselling service. The third strand of supervision is staff development. This involves looking at not only the training needed by the member of staff but also at what training they have already achieved and how best to use that to the advantage of the home. In respect of training that is needed it is important to ensure that the member of staff understands why they need that training so that they do not feel inadequate. As if they are not told appropriately why they need it they may feel that the manager thinks of them as being inadequate in a certain area rather that looking at it as a way of developing and progressing within the job. The one that comes to mind for this is NVQ training many staff look on it as something that they have to do or they will lose their job, rather than something that will not only benefit then in the job they do now, but could also lead to job progression for them. If the manager is able to recognize a member of staff’s strengths due to training they have received in the past they need to capitalize on this by ensuring that the member of staff is able to use that training in the work place. It could be that they have training and an interest in a particular area which would not possibly have been an area that staff have been able to work in with the children before, such as outdoor pursuits. As before recognizing what someone is good at in its self is a motivator as is recognizing potential within that member of staff. If the manager is not able to recognize these strengths and weaknesses to a certain degree then they are not able to provide the member of staff with appropriate training to help them develop within the job. The member of staff will then start to question their abilities which in turn will have an effect on their work and motivation. In conclusion it has to be said that in order for the home to run effectively and smoothly to give the children a stable home as well as ensuring that their needs are met the staff and their needs are as important. The staff being happy at work comes down to how motivated they are if you have a staff that are well supported by the management and that they get training appropriate for them along with recognition than you will generally have a reasonably effective work force. The managers role in all of this is vital as they need to be looking at and addressing the issues around the above. How they will look at the above and deal with them will vary depending on the type of manager you have. John Harvey Jones said 1988. â€Å"Management†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ is an art not a science. Each of us approaches the problem from a different background, and each of us is dealing with a situation, and a different culture, and from a different starting point† For me this statement sums it up in that different people will deal with things in different ways because of different factors. Ultimately a manager or team leader who is able to listen to and appreciate their staff will have a much more motivated team than one who does not listen to consult with or appreciate their team. As a member of such a team I believe that as a staff that we respond to situations and changes that we face better due to the way in which our team leaders deal with things like supervision, which is in the mode of theory Y management. This then creates an effective home for the children to live at some where they can call home and some where those staff are happy to be.

Agency Employment

Agency employment is where a person is employed as a contract or temporary worker to fill a position in a host company. The agency is the worker’s actual employer and is responsible for payroll and taxes, superannuation, recruitment/dismissal/discipline, workers’ compensation. The host company is responsible for direction of tasks or jobs to be undertaken and determining the work available for the temporary worker on site. Normally there is a joint responsibility in so far as occupational health and safety is concerned. The labour hire situation results in a division of responsibility for the agency employee between the agency and the client. How should common law accommodate this? Should the agency employee be regarded as having a single employer or is there scope to consider join employment or a temporary transfer of employment to the client? The rule at common law is that an employee cannot be transferred by his or her employer to the employment of another person without some act of assent, express or implied, on the employee’s part. The essence of a contract of employment is that it is freely entered into bargain between two parties in which there is the obligation of personal service to the employer. The common law principle that an employee cannot be transferred to a new employer without his or her consent is relevant to the question whether an employee could be transferred temporarily to another employer. Where the agency worker is injured at the client’s workplace, both the client and the agency may be liable to pay damages to the injured worker. The agency can still be liable under both occupational health and safety legislation and at common law. This may be the case even if the agency employee is working on a client’s premises where there may be diminished opportunities to ensure a safe system of work. An additional basis upon which the labour hire company employer can be liable is breach of a non-delegable duty of care. The effect of this principle is that a labour hire company employer remains liable for a negligent failure to provide a safe system of work even if it is the client’s (or some third party’s) negligence which causes the employee’s injuries. Where the injury occurs at the client’s worksite, the client may also be liable as an occupier of premises for failure to take reasonable care for the safety of a lawful entrant. The agency employee may cause injury or damage either to the client or to a third party whilst working for a client. Whilst an employer is vicariously liable for the tortious wrongdoing of an employee within the course of employment, there are additional complications for agency employees and host businesses.

McCarthy’s power Essay

We also see this clearly when the corrupt Putnam ruthlessly and heartlessly kills off his neighbours to buy their land, using his daughter and Tituba as mediums to accuse people with and feeding names into their mouths, as he does with the words, â€Å"Sarah Good? Did you ever see Sarah Good with him (the devil)? Or Osburn? Before his daughter Ruth has even admitted to witchcraft, he spreads the word of witchcraft, cruelly calculating his next move. The words, â€Å"That is a notorious sign of witchcraft, a prodigious sign,† indicate his joy at the opportunity to make some money and settle some old grudges. His disregard for his daughter’s health is yet another example of his lack of humanity. Parris is equally selfish and cold. When questioning Abigail about her dancing in the woods, Parris proceeds to say, â€Å"I must know it now, for my enemies will, and they will ruin me with it†¦ you must understand I have many enemies†¦ there is a faction sworn to drive me from my pulpit,† like Putnam lacking any concern for Abigail. It is clear that people like Danforth, Parris and Putnam aren’t in the business of helping Salem’s society, as people of their status should be, but in furthering their own possessions. Without these individuals keeping order and maintaining justice in the town, all of the old grudges and petty grievances are allowed to run riot and influence the proceedings in court, as we see when Ann Putnam accuses Rebecca Nurse, arguably the most respected person in the town, of killing her babies. This is also an example of how little scientific knowledge was available at the time, and how eager people were to place blame on other people. Aside from the few individuals with integrity, like Proctor, Corrie and Rebecca Nurse, the rest of Salem’s society will sacrifice others to safeguard their name in the town. When questioned by Hale, Abigail seems to instinctively play the innocent child which the audience knows she is definitely not, an example of dramatic irony. â€Å"I’m a good girl! I’m a proper girl! † These words highlight how quick she is to defend herself, and her insecurity about her image and reputation in the village. Once she is safe, she proceeds to shift blame onto others, like Tituba. â€Å"She tried (to make me drink the soup) but I refused†¦ She made me drink blood! † Abigail realises her word is taken over Tituba’s because of the racial prejudice at the time the play is set in. People like Abigail, Parris and Putnam aren’t afraid to use this discrimination to their advantage, which only serves to kill more people, or to ruin their lives. It is ironic that one of the few admirable qualities that are found in the town is the reason that so many people die. Ultimately, people like Hale and Proctor realise that it isn’t being seen as a good Christian or letting people think you are innocent that matters, but knowing yourself that you are innocent and have nothing to fear. It is this that convinces them that everything should be done to protect your innocence, even giving your life, in Proctor’s case. People like Proctor and Reverend Hale are purified by Danforth’s crucible but for the wrong reasons. While Danforth’s words, â€Å"We burn a hot fire here; it melts down all concealment,† would appear to be correct, they are ironic, in that the only way the truth comes out is if innocent people die first These men, along with the many others who are convicted, struggle long and hard with the decision of confession and lies versus integrity and righteousness. For others like Rebecca Nurse the choice is already decided, as her words, â€Å"Let you fear nothing, another judgement awaits us all,† suggest. She is firm in her belief that they will be repaid by God for maintaining their innocence. John’s dilemma is much worse, as he has family and children to worry about, and his name is ruined in the village already, as news of his adultery charges would have circulated. The impact of outpourings like, â€Å"I lie and sign myself to lies! I am not worth the dust of the feet of them that hang,† gives you the feeling that he realises the complexity of his situation, and that he is trapped either way. The real problem to him is that he believes it is his fault. Elizabeth’s last line, â€Å"He has his goodness now. God forbid I take it from him,† lets you know that she understands his choice and she respects and forgives him once again, which is ultimately what he wanted. The society has the ability to let innocent people die, not only because they are loyal to themselves and no one else, but because these people are willing to die for what they believe, or what they want, in Proctor’s case. There are many other people in the village who try to speak their mind, and do what is morally right, but whose aspirations are crushed by the opposing factors, like Parris, Danforth and Abigail. Mary Warren is a good example of this, as she hides from her fears, but then confronts them, only to be brought to her knees by the sheer callousness of Abigail. We can also attribute this to the earlier mention of Danforth’s interrogation-style cross examining as well, as he repeatedly asks the same question to Mary, â€Å"Has Mr. Proctor ever threatened you for this deposition? †¦ Has he ever threatened you? †¦ Has he threatened you? † It personifies the disorder of the court’s legal system, as if Danforth doesn’t get the answer he wants, you will suffer, whether you are right or wrong. Mary eventually caves in to the pressure, condemning Proctor in the process, although sympathy is felt for her, as all of her weaknesses are ruthlessly exploited by the girls, betraying Mary and leaving her with no other alternative. When Mary goes to court, she feels as if she is on trial and it is her credibility that is questioned, even though it is she who is accusing the girls, again linking to Hale’s earlier comment, â€Å"Is every defence an attack upon this court? † Danforth refuses to question the girls, as if they are found to be guilty, his reputation will be ruined and his judgement will be compromised. Instead he turns a blind eye you any damning evidence against the girls, and with the help of Parris, forces people to lie to save themselves, vindicating his decisions in the process. This is revealed when Parris declares, â€Å"There is either obedience or the church will burn like Hell is burning! † This is ironic, as Parris’ church is already â€Å"burning like Hell† as a result of his wayward leadership. Outbursts like this not only show the real character behind Parris’ fai ade, but they also serve to highlight the way he and Danforth work against the community, with an attitude that only helps the corrupt. Once Danforth has weakened the accuser, he provides them with a way out, as he does with Mary, slowly pushing her to convict Proctor with suggestions like, â€Å"It may well be Mary Warren has been conquered by Satan,† practically putting words in her mouth. His desperation becomes much more apparent when he threatens Mary, â€Å"You will confess or you will hang,† another example of his twisted logic and self-serving nature. This pressure to do what is expected draws parallels to the McCarthy era, when Un-American activities were seen as wrong, and the one person who should represent hope, Danforth in the case of The Crucible, is in fact an antagonist in the whole predicament. This pressure again links to fear, but in this case it is fear of authority that reigns supreme, as there are few people who have the courage to challenge the decisions made by Danforth, and face the harsh consequences. Any Salemites who enter the court are forced to choose between Danforth’s and Parris’ version of right, and the Christian right, which, in a just system, should be the same thing. As the play goes on, the audience’s antipathy for Parris grows, as they see him twisting the words of others and lying in court to protect himself, hardly the actions people expect of a priest. A prime example of dramatic irony is witnessed as the audience can see straight through Parris’ false exterior, as he desperately tries to cover up anything that could point to his knowledge of the girls â€Å"just dancin’ in the woods†. Few Salemites have any knowledge of his ulterior motives, or that anything he does or says is purely for his own well being, and the manner in which he projects himself is a far cry from his real character. Parris attempts to use theology to secure his position in the good books of Danforth and the community, often referring to the Bible during the proceedings in court. He leads most of the society to believe that he is trying to help them and, by lulling them into a false sense of security, he then seizes the opportunity to rid the town of anyone he believes is a threat to himself, or his position. Utilising his status and reputation, he preaches, â€Å"You should surely know that Cain were an upright man, and yet he did kill Abel,† in an attempt to have Proctor convicted. No court can provide unbiased or uncorrupted justice if its own minister is trying to have the defendant killed. His words, â€Å"The devil lives on such confidences! Without confidences there would be no conspiracy,† are ironic but true, as it is he who as kept much greater secrets, and it is he is the devil of Salem. In this sentence he is accusing someone who contrasts greatly with him, Giles Corey. Miller uses Corey to bring humour to the play, but he also stands alongside Proctor and Rebecca Nurse as one of the main symbols of integrity and righteousness. Although he is revealed as a nai ve, slightly puzzled man, he isn’t afraid to speak his mind, albeit with some harsh consequences like his wife’s death. Unlike Parris, he values his friends, which eventually leads to his death. His response to the choice of betraying his friend or dying is admirable, his integrity clear as he replies, â€Å"I stand mute. † The audience feels a great deal of sympathy and admiration not only for Corey, but also Proctor and Rebecca Nurse who set a great example that, few others follow. There is immense injustice, as the only people who die are innocent, and they are the privileged few who have integrity. Although he can’t stop the proceedings in the court, Hale disassociates himself from the fraudulent proceedings in the Salem court, with the statement, â€Å"I denounce these proceedings, I quit this court,† ruining his reputation in the process. His efforts to correct Danforth’s judgement are brought to a halt, often by Danforth himself who quips, â€Å"I will have nothing from you Mr. Hale! † This again highlights the stubbornness of Danforth, as he refuses to listen to anyone The structure of the play is quite regimented, as there always appears to be a glimmer of hope in each act, but the end of every act ends with chaos. This shows that the situation could never be resolved, as the paranoia and hysteria undermined any efforts to do this. In reality, it was the Salem society that was the devil, as Proctor declares, â€Å"A fire, a fire is burning! I hear the boot of Lucifer, I see his filthy face! And it is my face, and yours Danforth! † This again shows the humbleness of Proctor, as he has the integrity to face up to his shortcomings, while Danforth would prefer to hide, frantically trying to drown out Proctor’s words with his own, with the frenetic cry, â€Å"Take him (Proctor) and Corey with him to the jail! † This is another illustration of Danforth’s cowardice, and his inability to confront his flaws. Proctor’s earlier quote, â€Å"God is dead! † also serves to show the disorder in the justice system. The people who should represent God, like Parris and Danforth, are now the devils. We see further irony when Danforth states, â€Å"I will not deal in lies,† in a bid to obtain Proctor’s confession, when in fact, every pardon or conviction was based on a lie. No one can be sure if Danforth believed he was right in doing what he did, but it is obvious that he wasn’t right. In contrast, it is more obvious that Parris had a hidden agenda. However, both were responsible for the deaths of innocent people, although it seems that this was the only thing that could bring their reign to an end. One of the reasons Miller wrote this play was to denounce McCarthyism, and the end again draws parallels to this period, as the whole saga only came to an end when someone took a stand against the state. There were very few people who were willing to stand up for their beliefs, not only in Salem, but also during the McCarthy era, which is understandable given the consequences. . Miller projects other figures as unlikely heroes, everyday people like Rebecca Nurse, Giles Corey and John Proctor, who have the courage and integrity to admit to their faults, and die for their beliefs. In this era, with the town steeped in anger, vengeance and despair, these individuals stand alone making their achievements even greater. Once a stand had been taken however, the repercussions suffered by the corrupt leaders of these eras were also similar. Danforth’s power over the public diminished rapidly and Parris â€Å"walked the highroad, and was never seen again. † McCarthy’s power ceased as well, highlighting again, that a few individuals with a conscience can make a difference, one way or the other.