Stephen Dedalus: Nature or Nurture?

When considering the question of "Nature vs. Nurture" through the perspective of Stephen Dedalus, it is an interesting examination of the time period in Ireland when patriots like Parnell fought religious figures of the Catholic Church. Obviously, the religious and secular dualities are part of the environment that permeates Dedalus's life. Not only is this religion evident in society, but the "nurture" piece also demonstrates that he lives in a household that is split between religion and patriotism. Are Stephen's actions in the novel primarily shaped by his upbringing or external environment? Well, it is easy to state the novel’s external factors and stop there. However, Stephen’s unorthodox ability to “feel” his environment, such as the “ping-pong-puck” of the cricket bat, or the “scorching skull” when he envisions himself in Hell, prompts him to retain the aestheticism of an artist. Although he is definitely impacted by the pious teachings in his classes, or the sermon from Father Arnell, it is evident that the passion and character of an artist burns within him. It is interesting to examine the external factors that play a part in the development of Stephen’s character, especially when these external factors are largely based on the dualities existing in the novel. We see the artistic side of Stephen, and this is truly the “nurture” piece and the authentic character he displays. At the same time, the dualities of Heaven and Hell, Purity and Sin, Aesthetics and Rationality, and Assimilation and Isolation emphasize the rational, firm side that the Joyce presents to his brainchild, Stephen. These dualities cause Stephen to question the ambiguity of artistry, and thus, prompt him to consider life from a more black and white standpoint. For instance, when he chooses to confess his sins, or when he chooses to appeal to the rector, Stephen chooses a side. And by doing so, Stephen tends to succeed in his endeavors. This firmness transitions into action, and thus, accomplishment. In many ways, Stephen is impacted by his external environment. However, throughout the novel, the main character is obstinate about being an artistic and aesthetic. Although the confession during the novel is stylistically monotonous because it involves Stephen’s ability to admit and confront his sin (and thus, involves a transition from an artist to a pragmatist), for the most part, Stephen is sensually connected with his “external environment” and arguably he influences his natural environment with his appreciation for its beauty. While the answer is obviously ambiguous, it seems that for the most part, Stephen’s innately aesthetic character influences his actions and choices, however his external environment helps Stephen realize the instances when pragmatism supersedes aestheticism. There are times, he realizes, when it is better to be assertive and rational, than indifferent and ambiguous. By realizing this, Stephen Dedalus is not only the aesthetic artist, but the “comprehensive artist.”

Beloved Big Question: Is Sethe a "Slave to her Environment?"

The novel Beloved is intriguing to analyze from a nature versus nurture standpoint. The most practical way to go about answering this question is to zone in on Sethe, the main character. To a large extent, environment plays a part in the development of her character. This is obvious, especially given the context of the novel. She demonstrates the extent to which slavery's stringent chains have restrained her by evading confrontation with her past. Her inability to vocalize the past with her daughter, Denver, reveals the degree to which the past has left an indelible "chokeberry tree" on her being. Only after the reemergence of Beloved, Sethe is able to grasp and share about her past. This event indicates a shift in the novel, and reaffirms this notion that Sethe is largely shaped by her past surroundings because she remains relatively secretive about her past until Beloved's arrival. In this sense, Beloved is a symbol for the past resurfacing in the present, and thereby, affecting the future. I would argue that by being a symbol for the past and for Sethe's external environment, Beloved actually prompts Sethe to become more driven by self-action rather than by surroundings. This is evident especially through the anecdotes in the novel. For example, Sethe reveals a lot about her past upon Beloved's arrival in the novel. An instant connection appears to exist between the two characters. This is not unlike Sethe's connections to the past, and their effects on her future. By enabling Sethe to "rediscover" and "retell" of her past, Beloved allows this character to experience personal growth through her anecdotes. By coming to grips with the "external factors of the past," Sethe is able to discover her own self and thus, appreciate that her own actions, and not just her past, have shaped her as a human being. While Sethe's past is obviously ominous and revealing of the obsequious subservience she experienced on a daily basis, her action to murder Beloved and her ability to run away from Sweet Home makes the reader wonder about this character's malleability. In fact, these two actions in the novel seem to imply that Sethe is an audacious character, and her tensions with her past have been indirectly shaped by her actions. Therefore, her actions, to a large extent, have affected her as a person. The distinction in this novel is clearly difficult to make, however, it is fair to say that Sethe's ability to finally accept the impact that her external environment has had on her enables her to discover the decisiveness of herself. On the flip side, her ability to formulate a rationale for murdering Beloved enables us to see the extent to which slavery was cruel. Her environment, in this case, affected her so greatly that it prompted her to murder her child so that this child would be safe from this precarious environment she had been accustomed to. Sethe is a complex character. It is fair to say that in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of this character, we must understand the intertwined nature between Sethe's actions and her surroundings. And by doing so, we as readers can deduce the conclusion that Sethe's character is shaped by her actions and environment. Not only is her character shaped by these two factors, but also Sethe's actions are shaped by her environment, and her past actions have affected the current environment she resides in.

Big Question: The Stranger

Albert Camus writes a seemingly superficial, but nonetheless, poignant novel in The Stranger. Meursault, the novel's simultaneous protagonist and outcast, faces the difficulty of succumbing to society's deceptive facade of concealing authenticity. With this lingering thought, are the character's personal qualities and behaviors ultimately shaped by his actions, or simply by society's malleable hand? From the onset of the plot, Camus portrays Meursault as a blunt, almost flippantly frank, human being. In other words, the novel's protagonist is labeled as an "outcast" because he underscores the power of truth, and according to the societal norm, shares a superfluous amount of true emotion that is often times morally inappropriate in a societal context. By being the character who initially belittles the ingenuous facades of the societal standards, Meursault is the outcast. At the same time, however, he may be more of a person than any individual in the novel because of his inability to obscure his honesty, and willingness to speak the truth. With what has been said so far, it can be easily concluded that Camus is conveying to the reader the simple, resonating message that our character is not socially malleable, and instead, our actions determine our personality and character. This is the easy answer. Camus, in contrast, demonstrates a deeper meaning. While for the majority of the novel, Meursault is indignant of the affected social behavior around him, and impermeable to the membranes of societal influence, his paradigm of thought changes after he haphazardly murders an Arabian man. After this action, Meursault is subsequently locked up and awaiting his trial. As he spends his days in prison, the protagonist incessantly and continually remarks of the inevitably of events. For example, on p.81, he says, "No, there was no way out, and no one can imagine what nights in prison are like," or on p.97 he says, "Something had changed..as if familiar paths traced in summer skies could lead as easily to prison as to the sleep of the innocent." These quotations, even in different contexts, reveal Meursault's insecurities and renunciation of control over societal events. Camus, throughout the novel, seems to use society as an extended metaphor, an allegory, for an Almighty being. This is apparent when, during the end of the novel, Meursault, the "anti-Christ," is pitted against the priest, a symbol for society's beliefs in God. With this in mind, society is God, and thus, Meursault's gradual acceptance of his fate in society symbolizes the idea of societal predestination, and how Meursault's society, by forcing Meursault to accept the consequences of murder and the societal punishments it entails, thereby has a large effect on the protagonist's character. Going back to the original question of nature vs. nurture, the answer is complex. It is a gradual transition from utter invincibility to begrudging acceptance, a transition from celebrated individuality to forced assimilation, and a transition from actions, personal decisions, and self-control, to predestination, self-renunciation, and helplessness.

Big Question: Crime and Punishment

Nature vs. nurture is an interesting topic to discuss when considering Crime and Punishment. In terms of the influence of personal actions, as opposed to external environment, it seems that personal actions, according to Raskolnikov, supersede the setting that he is around. By murdering the pawnbroker, the main character conveys his rational of being a "superman" that is justified to go above humanity and kill for utilitarianism. In this sense, he demonstrates his flippancy for humanity's limitations, and his belief that his personal actions have shaped his character. On the other hand, however, Raskolnikov reveals his complexity as a character by vacillating between this belief that he surpasses humanity's morals, and the belief that he is a benefactor that is integral to humanity's solidification and survival. For example, by graciously giving all of his money to Marmeladov's family, he shows the contrasting idea that his external environment has impacted him to a greater extent than his personal actions, by showing him the prevalence of destitution and poverty, and enabling him to use this exposure as a motivation to give to others. His charity to the Marmeladov's and his murder of Alyona, therefore, assert two starkly contrasting ideas: the former emphasizes that Raskolnikov's external environment have had a greater impact on his true character, while the latter demonstrates that his personal choices have determined who he was as a person. It would be naive, as I've learned, to precariously assume that Raskolnikov is an "evil person." In fact, he is not. The culmination of the novel at the epilogue demonstrates his realization of his wrongdoings, and his desire to seek renewal and rebirth. This realization, too, stems from the impact of his external environment on Raskolnikov. Sonya, in particular, is the person that provides the catalyst for the main character's firmness and dogged persistence in confessing his murder and seeking repentance. She is that "external environment" that ultimately enables him to make the "personal choices" that he is able to. Sonya, therefore, motivates him to move in a direction away from his criminal guilt and to recognize the need for refining his "personal choice" to go beyond mankind and murder an old, haggard woman. Although his "personal choice" to murder Alyona initially shape his character and his person, the book itself is a 450 page work of transition to a life where Raskolnikov is able to move away from the extreme of "personal choice" and more into the moderate perspective that is influenced more by "external environment" that by selfishness of "personal choice." With this idea, Raskolnikov is a dynamic character because his character and true-self become more shaped by the people around him than by the immoral choice he makes at the end of the novel. In other words, the novel is a discovery of this character's, "external environment" that has the potential to change him for the better. At the same time, it is a realization of this character's, "personal choices" that have the potential to create self-guilt and trepidation. Although it goes without saying that a person cannot be perfectly shaped by surroudings or by actions he or she takes, Raskolnikov learns that spiritual fortification and happiness are achieved by relinquishing "personal choices" and learning from "external environment." In this sense, Raskolnikov is initially influenced by his egocentric desires and actions, but he comes to discover himself through renewal and rejuvenation by absorbing the wisdom, courage, and resolution from the people around him.

Big Question: King Lear

King Lear the tragedy has an interesting connotation to my big question. To refresh, my question is whether actions or environment plays a bigger part in shaping a person. After reading and analyzing this masterpiece, I was fascinated to see how these questions applied to characters such as King Lear, Edmund, and Edgar. King Lear seemed to be very malleable in the sense that he was easily influenced by the deceptive environment around him. For example, his tendency to believe Goneril and Regan's specious remarks of adoration demonstrate that he is easily influenced by the people around him. He is so influenced by society, that he in fact tells Cordelia to express more love for him because, in the eyes of society, he wants to be seen as someone who is reverently admired. Ultimately, his external environment plays the part in shaping his own actions, and thus, is more influential in shaping his character. Along with King Lear, who is more shaped by his surroundings than by his own sagacity, Edmund is shaped by his external environment. In his eyes, the world is a cruel, selfish place that his rejected him because of his illegitimacy. As the antagonist, he seeks to take revenge on society by utilizing conceit to avenge himself. For example, he feels that as Gloucester's son, he deserves to be the next Earl. Therefore, he plots to manipulate the relationship between Gloucester and Edgar, his father's legitimate son. As an outcast in the play, Edmund feels that he should take back what is rightfully his by reciprocating society's selfishness. In other words, Edmund is like Lear, because his vengeance is dictated by the societal rejection he has faced. Societal selfishness has prompted him to seek revenge, and thus, has influenced his character. Therefore, Edmund's character is more influenced by his external surroundings of society than by his actions since his actions are affected by his external environment. However, by the end of the play, Edmund realizes that he is an immoral bastard (literally), and faces the consequences in an honorable manner. This idea shows Edmund's progression as a character. Although he is influenced by society, he is wise enough to realize that he committed immoral deeds through his actions. In this sense, his actions have more of an affect on his character because he realizes that his immorality stems from his own doing, and not society's harshness. During his death, Edmund realizes that society isn't to be blamed for the heinous acts he committed, and that he is responsible for every immoral act he committed. This demonstrates growth in Edmund, because as he ironically is dying, he is also simultaneously progressing into a character who holds himself accountable for his mistakes. Finally, Edgar, like his brother, is molded by society rather than by action. He is very naive, and society changes him for the better by making him realize that the world is a hostile place, and that no one (even one's own kin) can be trusted. His environment shapes him by making Edgar realize that he must move away from the notion that everybody is good. Society shows Edgar that he should be stronger and more assertive. In other words, Edgar learns that he should move away from humanity and use his own judgement. In simple terms, society impacts Edgar's character by showing him that he should rely on his actions to guide his development (rather than on society). By weakening him to a debilitating condition, his external environment molds him into a character who learns to rely on his judgement and actions to define his character. Edgar, by leaning on society, learns to move away from it. He, like Edmund and Lear, discovers of the precarious consequences that can result from being shaped by external environment rather than by actions (and the one's conscience). Although these three characters differ in their character, (Edmund= vengeful, Lear= negligent, Edmund= naive), they are all similar in that they are slaves to their outer environment.

Big Question

My big question is:

Does our actions or external environment determine who we are as people?This question surfaced after talking to my parents. Each of them grew up in countries outside of the United States, and were definitely impacted by their surroundings. For example, my mom lived in Mauritius, a small island off the coast of South Africa. As a child, she faced challenges of being in an environment where boys received more educational attention than did girls. My mom was often placed in situations where she wasn't given the adequate attention she deserved as a child. To a large extent, the environment of Mauritius and the patriarchal family structure in this area discouraged my mom from pursuing the goals she desired: a medical degree and a desire to shape a future for herself. In turn, the environment she was around made her unable to act as she saw fit. In this case, the actions she chose to take as a child were affected by her living environment. Contrarily, the environment in the United States has provided her great confidence to pursue her dreams. This has helped her receive her certification as an MA, and she has fulfilled her medical dreams. While environment has played a large role in my mom's life, she has always been a proactive individual who has made a difference. Her actions have defined her even though her external environment has at times impeded her actions. Her actions have defied her environment and brought her to the successful position she is in today. While environment and action are both important in shaping a person, I feel that my mom thrives in any environment. While she faced many challenges in Mauritius, she took the initiative to overcome these hardships and eventually immigrated to America. Therefore, my mom has been shaped by her actions more than by her external surroundings.

Big Question: Oedipus Rex

My big question was:Does our actions or our external environment define us as individuals?In relation to Oedipus Rex, this question is very applicable and stimulating. As a tragedy geared towards emphasizing the inevitably of fate, this question undermines the importance of action. Oedipus, no matter how hard he tried, was destined to fulfill his fate of murdering his father and marrying his mother. It seemed his actions actually undermined the power of action. Because he chose to act to change his fate, Oedipus helped fulfill the prophecy. Therefore, his actions to avoid his fate actually propelled him towards it. Therefore, his external environment (the people that predicted his fate) had more of an impact on him as an individual. Although, it can be argued that his actions defined his ultimate downfall, and thus his character. Because Oedipus Rex's tragic flaw was his celerity and haste, his thoughtless pursuit for the truth ultimately led to his downfall. His actions, then, in a way defined his fate. Oedipus's actions led to the consequences that awaited him, and didn't necessarily change his fate. His fate was predetermined, and thus his external environment (the soothsayers predicting his fate and the people around him who foresaw his downfall) played a greater impact on him than did his actions. His actions may have expedited the process of his downfall, but his external environment ultimately caused his downfall. Obviously, it is difficult to pinpoint Oedipus as someone defined by actions or surroundings because an either-or outlook on character is not realistic. However, as the tragedy unfolds, it is apparent that his external surroundings have a bigger impact on him than do his actions because his external environment is what causes him to act in the way he does. His surroundings cause him to choose his path of downfall, although inevitable. His actions only determine the matter of time before he falls, while his external surroundings determine that he will fall, and thus show the individual that he will become. Thus, Oedipus Rex's external environment plays a bigger part in determining who he ends up being as a person. He falls, and his surroundings are to be blamed, because they have foretold this fate.