Contextual Comprehension #TFA

1) What was the most meaningful takeaway from today’s discussion relating to the cultural or literary context of Achebe’s work? 

Today's discussion certainty shed light on elements of the text that I had not considered as much in depth, as I now understand, that I should have. The most meaningful takeaway per se would be the acquisition of the concept of context of composition, which stands in stark contrast with the context that Achebe's tale prevails in. Accordingly, to primarily cement what the context of composition refers to:

The context of composition is when writers are influenced by their context (time in which they live, place in which their write or families from which they come), which ultimately contributes to the construction of their literary works. 

Subsequently, learning about the fact that Achebe penned his novel, Things Fall Apart, during the period of political turmoil in Nigeria (due to English imperialism), provoked me to conjure the link between why Achebe may have chosen to set his novel in a period earlier than the times he was writing it in. Perhaps Achebe was trying to revisit the incipient intervention of the British in Nigeria and thus was attempting to highlight the complexities of Nigerian life that were irreparably disrupted. In doing so, he attained the aim of showcasing the transition of clustered villages into one colonized nation under the British. Moreover the fact that Things Fall Apart was penned in 1958, which was two years prior to Nigerian independence, delineates the fact that nationalism was already heightened amongst the people and literary works as such only further propelled people to exhibit resilience and thus challenge the forced Eurocentric hegemony and assimilation. 

2) Select a specific quote from the interview or a general idea from the discussion and write a brief reflection.

One quote from Achebe’s interview that genuinely resonated with me was, “Storytelling has to do with power. Those who win tell the story; those who are defeated are not heard.” I am in complete agreement with Achebe’s perspective in this case as Achebe specifically alludes to how Europeans had initially constructed, through their literary works, a relatively skewed image of Africa in the minds of the Western populace and this was only possible because they were the domineering influence in the world during the mid 1900s. That being said, I also believe that this quote may not be as applicable today as people of all groups today have access to a platform that allows expression in the form of literature. Subversive literature such as Achebe’s works were a rarity in his time, nevertheless today the horizons have widened and the scope of such literature has expanded only due to revolutionary writers who took the risk and decided to tell their side of the story. It is crucial that perspectives are balance; simply viewing one side of a story can never capture the authenticity of a situation. As Chimamanda Adichie mentioned in her TedTalk— Single stories create stereotypes that are not untrue, but are incomplete. Hence, while the perspective of the “winners” is incontrovertibly crucial, hearing the voice of the “defeated” is equally as important to gain a holistic understanding. 

Paper 1: We Shall Fight on the Beaches

The given text is an extract from former Great Britain Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s speech, “We Shall Fight on the Beaches,” delivered to the House of Commons on June 4^th, 1940. Through the contextual appreciation of the speech in conjunction with the distinct conventions of the text, it can be inferred that the text type is that of a political speech targeted at primarily revealing to the British people the notion of a possible German invasion whilst simultaneously pacifying rising qualms. Accordingly, Churchill employs numerous rhetorical devices and structural conventions to ultimately augment the progression of his central argument and coax his audience, utilizing charismatic oratory abilities, into believing that United Kingdom was equipped to confront the Germans and would not relinquish its dignity at any cost.

The target audience of this speech comprises predominantly of members of the House of Commons, who are representative of the people of Britain and play a critical role in the passing of laws. It can thus be assumed that the premise of Churchill’s speech was to convince the members of the validity of the choices made by the British government in regards to the prevalent conflict with the Germans and essentially gain their approval to proceed with the outlined intentions. For instance, Churchill states that taking “measures of increasing stringency” were deemed as a necessity against “enemy aliens,” “suspicious characters of other nationalities,” and “dangerous British subjects.” In saying so, Churchill facilitates an understanding of the urgency of the situation at hand and embeds the same in the audience as the negative connotations accompanied by the specific diction in reference to the Germans provokes the audience to construct a dehumanized image of the ultimate enemy and hence enhances the sentiment of animosity directed at the Germans during World War II. Moreover, in the concluding paragraph of the speech, Churchill repeats the idea that the British people could only triumph over the Germans by collectively persisting as he states, “We shall go on to the end,” and continues each successive clause with “we shall.” Hence, it can be deduced that the speech also attains the purpose of acting as a call to action for the target audience—the British people—in the conflict against the Germans.

The specific content incorporated in the speech is crucial in pertinence to the fact that the carefully chosen content aids Churchill in deftly building up the efficacy of the principal ideas conveyed.  In the excerpt presented, Churchill first establishes an impression that Great Britain is fairly under control of the situation as he cements the implementation of “stringent measures” and the bestowal of “power” by the Parliament to oust “Fifth Column activities”. The audience subsequently is made to feel somewhat at ease as Churchill asserts his credibility as a leader and thus solidifies ethos in appearing to be a trustworthy figure. Furthermore, the technique of eponym used in referring to “Fifth Column activities” is indicative of the clans within Great Britain that were supportive of the Germans. Churchill then advances to address the issue of a potential invasion and in a sense consoles his audience using the promises of “sea power” and “air power,” which were Britain’s most noteworthy military outlets at the time. Following the brief mention of the invasion, Churchill reverts to iterating the government’s efforts and the resolve that they had to be victorious, thus inspiring the audience to lay their faith in the government, while taking on a more nationalistic outlook. Finally Churchill concludes the speech by affirming the point that surrendering was not an option and the nation would go to whatever lengths necessary to protect its stance and not succumb to Nazi Germany. It can be noted that Churchill does not necessarily maneuver around the conflict diplomatically as a politician would normally do, but instead is relatively explicit in terms of name-calling Germany as the enemy and thus grounding his argument in a very direct political discourse which intends to precisely acquaint the audience with the issue and emphasize the necessity for solidarity through the rhetoric of logos. In totality, the specific content incorporated in the speech collectively serves the purpose of successfully conveying a logical argument to the audience. On the other hand, the theme of this text is centralized on the prominence of the British people’s support to the government and the call to unify the nation to jointly endure and overcome the ordeal of involvement in a conflict with Germany.  The elemental ideas that suggest the theme is evident in diction like “novel stratagem,” “resolve,” and in phrases like “we shall not flag or fail.” Moreover, an undercurrent of patriotism further elevates the central essence of the ubiquitous theme.  Thus, the content and theme of the speech act as inextricable elements that contribute to enhancing the value of the speech. 

The underlying tone that Churchill delivers his speech with can be deemed as a melange of assurance, patriotism, and urgency. The aforementioned tones manifest sequentially as Churchill effectually juxtaposes his ideas in a manner that allow for the three tones to emerge progressively. Churchill mentions the implementation of stringent measures and the adoption of “novel methods” to combat the German forces, which contribute to accenting the assuring tone. The tone of patriotism runs throughout the speech as ultimately every idea mentioned in the speech is in association with advantageous results for the people of the nation. The urgency is evident in Churchill’s concluding paragraph as he ends on a note of a call to action through the unification of the nation against a common arch nemesis: “we shall not flag or fail.” The mood established as a result of the speech is substantially tense as the British people digest the possibility of an imminent threat to the nation. Additionally, a sense of trepidation is also instilled in the audience in response to the anticipated invasion as Churchill makes note of the deleterious consequences faced by “great many people” who were “passionate enemies of the Nazis.” Towards the end however, a considerably stimulating atmosphere is cemented as Churchill uses repetition in the phrase “we shall” to heighten the significance of the points being articulated. The speech, in the entirety, emphasizes the need for the people of the nation to coalesce and treats the matter with much passion and great deliberation as evident in the jargon-rife approach that Churchill adopts in his speech. Finally an underpinning of strength and hope can be deduced from the speech as Churchill mindfully tackles the manner in which he speaks in order to appeal to his audience and show them an aperture in the gloom of World War II. Therefore, the tone and mood of the poem align with the message being conveyed and thus propel Churchill in achieving his main intentions.

Churchill employs a wide range of rhetorical devices and intentional stylistic choices in his speech to essentially accentuate the impact of his words on his audience and thus persuade them of his chief intentions in the ongoing conflict with Germany. The first and foremost overarching observation is the repetitive use of the personal pronoun “we,” which has been used throughout the extract in two denotations; one being Churchill and the government and the second being the former in conjunction with the commonalty of Britain. The constant repetition of this pronoun establishes a more inclusive atmosphere for the audience, which consequently urges them to be more receptive of the ideas presented by Churchill. Moreover, the same also cements a sense of unity in the nation, as Churchill’s speech is indicative of success only being plausible if the people act as a union. Another focal element of Churchill’s linguistic panache is the ubiquitous use of dysphemism. For instance, in utilizing specific diction like “malignancy,” “stamped out,” “tyrants,” and “subjugated,” Churchill evokes an emotional response tinged by aggression and a corresponding desire for vengeance in the audience. The use of political jargon and glittering generalities is also rife in Churchill’s speech—parliament, Fifth Column activities, House, French Republic, comrades— which serves the purpose of re iterating his credibility as an intellectual politician, therefore provoking the audience to rely on him, as an element of ethos is present and appeals to the listener. In the quote “If all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made.” Churchill effectually utilizes the literary tool of tricolon to sequentially accent the necessary factors for Great Britain’s success and allow the audience an insight into the same while laying great emphasis on the contribution of the audience. The literary device of assonance can be identified in Churchill’s use of “odious apparatus of Nazi rule” as the subtle repetition of the ‘o’ and ‘a’ sounds enhances the euphony of the line whilst conveying the deep abhorrence that Churchill exhibits in regards to the Germans. A ‘transfer affect’ is apparent in this quote, as the audience is provoked to experience a mutual hatred for the enemy due to the strong negative connotations and associations with the choice of words. Furthermore, the rhetorical device of anaphora is heavily utilized in the concluding paragraph as Churchill begins each consecutive phrase with “we shall” to ultimately underline the premise of the speech and end the speech on a wistfully evocative note, invoking the audience to join him in his war efforts. Finally, the explicit allusion to the United States as the “New World” serves the purpose of posing as means of comfort for the people of Britain as the New World’s support suggested that Great Britain had two worthy allies (the French and the United States) to aid them in combatting the Germans. Thus, Churchill uses his literary flair to verbalize a speech rife with deliberate stylistic choices that act as pathos and thus galvanizes them into action.

The structure that Churchill follows in his speech is not very definite as he tends to highlight multiple ideas simultaneously, which is an appealing factor that enhances the effectiveness of his argument. In a more general sense however, Churchill logically outlines his main points as he first comforts his audience through the promises of eradicating the enemy and then divulges the possibility of an invasion, following which Churchill returns to accenting the collective duty of the people of the nation. Finally, Churchill concludes his speech with a powerful culmination of his call to action to the audience. Hence, the sequential structure that Churchill employs in his speech efficiently creates a dichotomy between the main ideas presented whilst concurrently linking each idea to the next and thus elevating the central persuasiveness of his speech. 

All in all, Churchill commendably puts into effect his oratory flair to formulate a heavily persuasive speech that serves the ultimate purpose of convincing the British people to be patient in regards to the prevailing political mayhem due to the possibility of a German invasion of the nation. Churchill’s effective integration of rhetorical devices further propels his eloquently articulated argument and the persuasiveness of his political speech.

Coriolanus IOC

Power Personified

Through the remarkable play Coriolanus, Shakespeare effectually mirrors the period of a paradigm shift in Elizabethan England as he documents multifarious elements reflective of a political transition from an aristocratic system to a principally parliamentary structure. Accordingly, the context of the play itself is established in ancient Rome and allows for the Elizabethan audience to engage in a gripping political tragedy propelled by a spectrum of distinct characters. Subsequently, the overarching theme of the play is cemented in illustrating the implications of varying power dynamics in a shifting political realm; Shakespeare accordingly manifests this central idea through exhibiting the different types of powers allegorically through different characters. For instance, the supreme authority wielded by protagonist Coriolanus that ultimately led to his downfall, demonstrates the fatal consequences of an anachronistic power unable to adapt to the shifting political sphere. Contrastingly, the charismatic character of Menenius is juxtaposed with Coriolanus to essentially allude to the significance of a powerful status only being successful if one is willing to bridge the gap between the commonalty and those ruling the hierarchy. Similarly, the characters of the Tribunes (Brutus and Sicinius) exemplify a completely different end of the spectrum in comparison to Coriolanus as the voices of the commonalty. Finally, the characters of Volumnia and Aufidius personify the art of diplomacy that determines triumph in the political realm dominated by power.

Coriolanus' Purposeful Characterization

What is Shakespeare’s larger purpose in his characterization of Coriolanus in Act I?

Through the gradual unraveling of Act I of the play Coriolanus, Shakespeare impeccably exposes multiple facets of the eponymous hero to ultimately attain the larger purpose of shedding light on elemental concepts—genre, context and future conflicts— that construct the very foundation of the play.

To commence, Shakespeare strategically introduces Caius Martius’ character through the lens of the Plebeians, or the lower class citizens of Rome, who express their deep discontent in regards to prevailing grain shortage for the commonalty whilst the Patricians ostensibly are accused to be instrumental in causing the adversity. More specifically, the Plebeians collectively agree on Martius being the “chief enemy to the people.” Which provokes the readers to internally begin construing a character outline of Martius based on the Plebeians’ perspective. Nevertheless, whilst Shakespeare does essentially use the Plebeians’ initial mutinous event to function as an exposition for the play, in doing so Shakespeare not only indirectly characterizes a facet of Roman general Martius but also captures the hierarchical structure of Rome during the period when the play transpired, hence instilling in the audience a better understanding of the contextual significance of the play. Furthermore, the amplified emphasis on the constitutional configuration of Roman society in Act I essentially cements the notion that the play itself leans toward being more of a political play and not a conventional tragedy, as is common in Shakespeare’s notable literary successes.

The introduction of honorable Menenius, whom the Plebeians address as “worthy” and “honest enough,” establishes an immediate contrast between the two characters on the sole basis of how the two are perceived by the commonalty. Hence, Shakespeare effectually constructs Menenius’ character to act as a foil character in order augment the magnitude of the Plebeians’ dissatisfaction with Martius despite the fact that Menenius also is a noble. Thus, the audience is provoked to deduce that the Plebeians’ complaints concerning Martius must be justifiable and must stem from Martius’ unpleasant demeanor.  Moreover, Menenius’ noteworthy body parable in this Act serves the purpose of reiterating and further elucidating upon the societal hierarchy structure as Menenius allegorically refers to the Senate being the “belly” of a body (which would be Rome) as juxtaposed with the “rash” citizens or the “mutinous members,” who, according to Menenius, are unable to appreciate the labour that the Senate undertakes for the benefit of the people.

Despite the fact that the Shakespeare crafts Martius’ initial impression as a character tainted by an overarching negative connotation, the audience is granted a glimpse into an alternative facet of Martius’ character when he is preparing for and engaging in the Battle at Corioles which exemplifies the dichotomy between the two discrete realms within the play— the battlefield and the city state. Accordingly, Martius is characterized in an entirely different light as he is portrayed to be a valiant warrior and revered leader on the battlefield. Diction plays a critical role in establishing the distinction between these two realms and the subsequent distinction as mirrored in Martius’ character. For instance, through declarative statements like “Now put your shields before your hearts, and fight with hearts more proof than shield.” The reader gains an insight into Martius’ zeal as a determined general and the qualities he possesses as a commanding leader, despite being disliked by the commonalty in the Roman city-state.

Shakespeare also strategically curates Act I to obscurely foreshadow future conflicts that propel the plot of the play. Firstly, the key conflict between the people of the city-state and Martius is established through the Plebeians’ aggressive protestations at the onset of Act. Moreover, through the incorporation of the Tribunes, Brutus and Sicinius’ internal hatred for Martius’ character foreshadows how the two characters could potentially be adversaries for Martius later on in the play. Furthermore, In Scene V of the Act, the audience is acquainted with Martius’ old arch nemesis and general of the Volscians, Tullus Aufidius. Despite the fact that Martius emerges victorious at the battle at Corioles, Aufidius’ vengeful character illustration foreshadows another encounter between the Martius and Aufidius, highlighting another outlet for the rise of conflict within the play.  

Thus, Shakespeare effectually crafts Act 1 of the play to unveil a multitude of elements in direct relation to the genre, context, and possible conflicts within the play. Moreover, the effectiveness of the Act itself is embedded in the fact that Shakespeare seamlessly reveals the aforementioned aspects whilst efficaciously introducing and characterizing the flawed tragic hero of the play, Caius Martius.

Language as Resistance

"I imagine them hearing spoken English as the oppressor’s language, yet I imagine them also realizing that this language would need to be possessed, taken, claimed as a space of resistance. I imagine that the moment they realized the oppressor’s language, seized and spoken by the tongues of the colonized, could be a space of bonding was joyous." 

- Bell Hooks 

Text: Liberty for Slaves (1857 speech by Frances Ellen Watkins Harper) 

The contextual delivery of the speech "Liberty for Slaves" can be established in pertinence to the mid 1800s in the United States, whereby the African American community continued to be suppressed and shackled by slavery under the prevalence of the popular white supremacy ideology. Nevertheless, Harper, born as a free black woman, played a crucial role in the movement promoting the emancipation of slaves as she became an eminent abolitionist speaker, invoking members of her own community to believe in the cause and unite as a whole to defy societal confines and spark a revolution. 

One important element to note in Harper's works is her immaculate articulation of the speech in Standard English as opposed to the expected African American Vernacular that was employed by members of the black community in the times. Subsequently, Harper effectually utilizes her eloquence and command over Standard English as a literary weapon to fortify her resistance against white domination, by therefore adopting the primary language of the people and essentially using it against them.

Through a series of remarkably curated phrases like "The law of liberty is the law of God, and is antecedent to all human legislation," and "trails my womanhood in the dust," Harper solidifies the persuasiveness of her powerful argument crafted in the true essence of Standard English. Moreover, the passionate tone underpinning Harper's speech, as unveiled through her carefully manipulated diction and rhetorical devices, propels the target audience to be empowered and therefore take advantage of the linguistic imperialism they encountered as a community.

To convey her argument, Harper also centralizes majority of her argument on the basis of religious outlooks and weaves in biblical references as a means to highlight the irrationality of racial segregation and more specifically the legitimization of one race to reign supreme. Accordingly the efficacy of the argument is further augmented by Harper's elegant form of linguistic expression and complementing rhetorics including vivid evocative imager, appeal to emotions, logical declarations and thought provoking rhetorical questions. 

Thus, Harper's speech "Liberty for Slaves" effectually embodies the notion of resistance that the African American community had "possessed" in a sense the "oppressor's language" and used it as a space or conduit to empower members of the community. 

Kaingang Podcast!