Essay question 2. A constantly-changing society like America—where, like Rip Van Winkle, every day we wake up to a new world of changing fashions, values, and rules—constantly stimulates questions of appropriate moral insight and behavior.

            The two standard reactions to the shock of change are either moral absolutism--“A woman’s place is in the home,” “It’s their fault,” and “Just say no”--or moral relativism: "Live and let live," "You are not the judge of me," "As long as you feel all right about it . . . ."

            In contrast, classic writers like Hawthorne, Whitman, Dickinson, and Melville or great leaders like Lincoln seem to recognize both the importance and complexity (or ambiguity) of human morality.

            Referring to writings by at least two of these five writers (and to any others for comparison or contrast), describe how human problems of good and evil are depicted vividly and significantly but without a simple, reductive moral judgment of who is right or wrong, or innocent or guilty.

·        Give a picture of the moral situation in which the characters find themselves.

·        What does a reader learn from the moral situation, and what pleasure or benefit may a reader take from such a scene or story?

·        What are the responsibilities and risks of studying complex moral issues in public schools as we do here?

[complete answer from email final]

            Many of the texts considered in this semester’s review deal with themes of great moral complexity.  Absolutism is not a hallmark of the classic texts considered thus far.  Love, life and loss permeate the texts of these classic authors.  The act of war seems to involve all three of these aspects for many of the classic authors of this semester’s consideration.  In Herman Melville’s Billy Budd and Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, war becomes the touchstone from which life’s vicissitudes are memorably and colorfully recounted.  In both texts, simple jingoism or crass protest is bypassed for a fuller picture of the tragedy and triumph of actual warfare.  

            In Melville’s Billy Budd, the simplicity of the narrative belies the thematic and structural complexity of the work.  On its face, the story is about a sailor executed for killing a superior officer in the midst of war.  But even a reader unfamiliar with Melville’s style senses the intellectual rigor and moral gravity of the piece.  Billy Budd is an impressed, or conscripted, seaman of late 18^th century Britain.  Billy is a physically beautiful but intellectually simple man.  Well liked by the crew, he is a vision of “Adam before the fall”.  His innocence, though, becomes a fatal flaw, which leads to his destruction. From a mythological standpoint, Billy would seem to fit the pattern of the Christ figure found in much of Western literature.  But the complexity of Billy’s character does not perfectly lead itself to an allegorical representation.  Billy is inarticulate and at times rashly violent.  At best he is a fractured or splintered Christ figure.  Such a depiction lends itself to the moral complexity of the tale.

            Britain is facing a mortal threat from France and conscripts unsuspecting seamen to fight in the navy.  In a few instances, the conscripts stage mutinies as in the case of the Nore.  Though Billy is a willing and pliant participant in the impressments scheme, the threat of potential violence hangs heavily over the Bellipotent. This threat drives the plot.

            John Claggart, the master of arms and primary antagonist, concocts a scheme to ensnare Billy into mutiny.  Claggart despises Billy but gives no reason but envy as to the source of his appreciable disdain.  Melville comments that Claggart possesses an “elemental evil” and a “natural depravity” that wills him toward this dark path.  Claggart does not get Billy to get involved in a mutinous plot but does report to the captain of the ship, Edward Vere, that Billy is in fact a malevolent and scheming force among the men. Though Claggart’s character is depicted as duplicitous and insidious, he too has shafts of divinity shining through his suspect moral framework.  Claggart catches a vision of Billy at the top of a mast and witnesses Billy in all of his Hyperion beauty.   Claggart arrives at an evanescent epiphany. When he sees Billy, “his eyes become strangely suffused with incipient tears.”  Melville adds, “Then would Claggart look like the man of sorrows.”  Claggart too becomes a fractured Christ figure.  Again Melville’s moral complexity does not allow Claggart simply to be Satan transfigured to the waters of the 18^th century Atlantic.  Claggart too is drawn into the continuum of the human condition.

            Captain Vere is also a splintered Christ figure. Vere is the only witness to Claggart’s murder and only judge of Billy’s fate.  Vere is intellectual and well regarded by his peers.  But he is remote from the crew.  Still his paternal fondness for Billy Budd displays Vere’s knowledge of human nature.  Vere distrusts Claggart’s tale about Billy’s complicity in a mutinous plot.  But when Billy kills Claggart, Vere divines Billy’s tragic fate at the murder of Claggart: “Struck dead by an angel of God! Yet the angel must hang!” Vere’s quick judgment sends Billy to the gallows.  Some critics have argued that Vere’s judgment disqualifies him from any consideration as a Christ figure.  But Vere is a man of sorrows, even muttering Billy’s name on his deathbed.   Because of his rash judgment, Vere is not a clean transfiguration of Christ.  Like Billy and Claggart, Vere serves as a facet from which human nature and the human condition can be considered. 

            For the reader, Billy Budd outlines the continuum of human nature.  Billy is the aspect of human innocence and ignorance about the world.  Claggart serves to demonstrate man’s wayward nature.  Vere becomes the exemplar of advanced moral complexity.  Billy’s downfall is his ignorance of human nature; Claggart’s downfall is his treachery. The reader learns that only experience and enlightenment can reconcile life’s evanescent moments of glory with the constant depravity of the state of human affairs.  The reader learns that knowledge tinged with the sad experience of human living can affect survival in a world of cruelty and debauchery.

            In Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, the president attempts to reconcile and define the meaning and consequences of the Civil War.  Lincoln sees the end of the war approaching.  The South has lost the war and its independence.  After a long and bloody engagement, Lincoln could well have descended into triumphalism on the occasion of his reelection.  But Lincoln understands the importance of binding the nation together again.  His words reflect the complexity of the situation and the imperfect moral positions of both sides of the conflict. 

            Lincoln manages to establish common ground with the Confederates in his speech by referring to the common religion that the two sides share: “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other”.  Again at this passage Lincoln might have simply stated that God chose to sustain the Union.  But Lincoln opts to say the following: “The prayers of both could not be answered-that of neither has been answered fully.”  In the end, Lincoln recognizes his task and legacy will be the reunion of the nation.  He is magnanimous in victory as he asks the nation to heal the nation’s wound “with malice toward none; with charity toward all.”

            This sense of the moral complexity of the war comes from several sources.  The war cost hundreds of thousands of lives and decimated a generation of young men.  The war also explored the question of human freedom and its worth in a democratic society.  These difficult circumstances plagued both sides of the martial divide. Lincoln’s oratory serves as a balm on the nation’s bloodied soul.  Only with Lincoln’s large spirit can the United States be made whole.

            The reader learns the importance of understanding duality of perspective.  Indeed the Confederate position offends many people.  But the reader can appreciate Lincoln’s nuanced approach to solving the conflict.  Even in current conflicts, nuance and context are required to understand the reasons for war.  Often there is more ambiguity than it might appear on the surface.  The reader learns to guard against simplistic or rash judgments on matters of consequential importance. 

            The difficulty of teaching morally complex circumstances in public schools involves the presence of politics on school boards and classrooms.  From science to social studies to literature, interest groups compete to shape curriculum and textbooks. Often these groups succeed through political pressure on local school boards.  These groups consider moral complexity and ambiguity “relativistic”.  But local school districts should teach students to think critically about world affairs.  Only with the constant consideration of such issues in the classroom can students be acclimated to such thinking.   School districts have a responsibility to mold students into citizens.  Real citizens think through issues thoroughly before expressing an opinion.  School districts should not shirk this responsibility despite the political pressure. [DG]

[complete answer from email final]

After the American Revolution, America sought to establish its own identity from the British motherland. This desire slowly coalesced into a broadening array of moral ideologies woven into the American culture and social fabric. Strict Calvinistic condemnations, puritanical teachings, Abhorrence or adherence to slavery, Transcendentalism, and the rights of women and native people are just a few of the emerging and divergent issues that identify and at the same time cause conflict within the American society. Classic authors and leaders of the American Renaissance often broached issues of morality in a manner that sought to highlight inclusion by focusing on the commonalities inherent in our humanity rather than on exclusion by our many differences. Two men that did this in particular were Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln. Their writings were remarkable for their sweeping, inspiring touch on the soul of everyman, recognizing the complexity of human morality, the strength of our similarities and the relative frailty of our disparities. 

Walt Whitman, considered by many to be America’s finest poet, was nothing short of a visionary with language. His unbounded style was matched only by his expansive mind. His poetry, with its free verse, catalogues of imagery, repetitions and parallel themes successfully tackled grand subjects that had previously intimidated other poets. Whitman blew up the idea of the individual, the recording “I,” addressing thoughts and ideas with a sense of universality that continue to stir and stagger the hearts of readers. By forming common bonds, common points of self identification, within a broad community of souls, Whitman inadvertently asks us to lay down our differences and join together in a celebration of life.

Whitman’s Song of Myself is a perfect example of a scope incredibly far-reaching, yet at the same time filled with the minutia that reverberates our senses daily. The beginning of the poem clearly depicts this style of contrast and connections:

I celebrate myself,

And I assume you shall assume,

For every atom belonging to me as good as belongs to you. (2863)

Immediately, we are hit with a sense of inclusiveness. Then in the next few stanzas he talks about “observing a spear of summer grass,” the quality of the atmosphere, “dark colored sea rocks”, and “a million suns” ( 2863-2864). This style of shifting perspectives, taking the reader far away then bringing our observation very close serves to unite mankind. It breaks down our expectations and broadens our minds to be more tolerant, to see each other as fellow humans and break down the natural tendency of the mind to categorize and distinguish.

Abraham Lincoln, like Whitman, strove to find common ground between opposing viewpoints. However he was imbued with a strong sense of morality as well. He went to war after the South seceded in order to keep the country together. It was only after the war had begun when he saw it his duty to also abolish slavery on moral grounds. However. Lincoln realized that the only true way to bring the country back together was to focus on the commonalities as citizens of the United States, instead of the differences. He clearly does this in his Second Inaugural Address. He pointed out that both sides had suffered, both had wanted to triumph, and both read the same Bible and asked the same God for help: “The prayers of both could not be answered-that of neither has been answered fully” (2011). “With malice towards none; with charity towards all” (2011), Lincoln sought to be an inclusive leader and begin the healing the nation so desperately needed to unite as one again. Condemnation and judgment were withheld and embracing acceptance of differences was promoted.

Situations of morality and the acceptance of different individuals or groups by the larger community, as portrayed in Whitman’s and Lincoln’s writings, contain important messages for society. Building bridges to greater understanding between groups and individuals will only serve to decrease violence and foster our life-sustaining interconnectedness. As long as not one of us exists in a vacuum, it is critical to build on our shared experiences of being human rather than contrast with our differences. Only by understanding where someone is coming from, how they think, their background and culture can we continue to establish ideals of morality and common ground. Understanding and listening to the voices of the minority should be taught in schools because it is the best way to build a cohesive and healthy society. [DD]

            [complete answer from email final]

Classic authors such as Hawthorne, Whitman, and Melville captivate audiences by the presence of ambiguity within their texts.  By leaving the story guidelines open to audiences’ interpretations the authors draw deep thoughts and complex morality questions out of the readers.  These authors write in such as way that expels the normal fashion of the “good guy” versus the “bad guy” by incorporating elements of both into their characters.  This combination of good and evil inside a character cause readers to question the true definition of good and evil and whether the two can co-exist. These types of classical novels require the readers to assess not only the text but human nature as well.

            One of the most thought provoking stories read this semester was Billy Budd, by Melville.  This story blurs the line between Billy’s good nature and his tragic flaw of insecurity from a vocal defect, which inadvertently leads him to murder a man.  Melville tears apart the conventional notions of a hero and creates a character who is full of the “gaiety of high health, youth, and a free heart, while also a murderer.  The combination of evil with good creates distention in the story and demands that the readers be the judges of morality.  Another area of ambiguity left for the readers to hash through is the theme of “community” verses “individual” good.  Objective 3 talks about using literature to discuss representative problems in American culture.  Obj. 3 is represented in Billy Budd by the concept of this “communal good.”  Classical writers are able to present societal issues to their audiences that cast light on multiple sides of the issue.  The story of Billy Budd works to slant human desire to save the hero and requires the audience to delve deeper and see the “higher cause.”  Billy must die for his crime in order to save the order of the ship and keep it from mutiny.   Readers could apply this idea of individual sacrifice for the good of the whole, to modern moral topics of war, government and other societal functions, making this story a combination of quality literature mixed with an internal moral scale. 

            Hawthorne uses similar writing strategies when describing Hopper in The Minister’s Black Veil. Hooper is a minister, a title that is traditionally associated with good.  By placing the black veil over the minister’s face, Hawthorne is blurring the idea that one can encompass both good and evil.  The ambiguity as to why the minister is wearing the veil leaves the readers to draw their own conclusions about goodness in the presence of corruption, and whether the corruption comes from within or outside of the veil.  “ Thus, from beneath the black veil, there rolled a cloud into the sunshine, an ambiguity of sin or sorrow, which enveloped the poor minister, so that love or sympathy could never reach him.”  This quote beautifully illustrates the strain placed on the minister’s character.  The moral code of ministers would seem to be violated by the presence of the veil, which blocks the minister from the ability to love, which is a trait of God.  The dual side to the ministers’ morality is that he seems to feel pained by sin and sorrow much like that of Christ.  By not knowing who or where the sin and sorrow is derived from the audience must become the moral judge of the minister.  Hawthorne also approaches the moral judgement or “society” versus the “individual”.  Much like Melville, Hawthorne calls you to question whether it is morally correct for the minister to satisfy his own desire by wearing the veil or comply to the people he has been ordained to serve and remove the veil.  The question rises, is the desire to wear the veil worth the chaos brought into the town by its presence?  The question is left by Hawthorne for his audience to judge.

            Other authors such as Whitman use morality issues in a reversed way, by applying “one” to the “whole.”  By leaving ambiguity as to who the author is referring to, allows the readers to place themselves into the text making it alive to them in accordance with their lives’ circumstances.  In Whitman’s “Song of Myself”, the reader is welcomed to place themselves in the poem, place Whitman in the poem or the community as a whole.  Whitman welcomes the communal theme “ I celebrate myself, and what I assume you shall assume, for every atom belongs to me belongs to you.”  By universalizing his poem, Whitman brings into question the social conventions of slavery and racism.  By viewing “all as one” he challenges his readers to morally judge societies standards on human life.

            The ambiguity in classic texts works to benefit the readers.  Instead of reading the story at face value the readers must become active with the text to decipher the true meaning and hidden insinuations.  The readers also are made aware of their own judgments, prejudices and moral codes by accessing the lives, actions and outcomes of the characters in the stories.  By reading multi-dimensional characters the readers can also gain a grander perspective of human nature and the motivation behind human action.

            Though classical writers cause readers to become aware of moral issues a caution must be taken when teaching their writings within a classroom.  One must realize that moral ideals may differ from one person or one culture to the next.  The teacher must be sensitive that no judgement is passed on any certain person or persons and that all sides of the story are accurately represented.  The teacher must manage the flow of the conversation to keep the students on track and not allow for incorrect or judgmental assumptions to be made. Openly discussing classical literature in terms of its moral content may compel the students to make their own choices of moral good and what they deem immoral.  By actively addressing moral issues students gain knowledge into the human psyche and what drives and motivates individuals.  They can thus apply their knowledge, motivating themselves and or avoiding mistakes. [JN]