StrivingLife presents ...

For this paper, I went to go see The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams. This play was put on at the Weidner Center, and was the first student production that I had seen there. In fact, this was the first time that I had heard of both the story and the author.

Overall, I really enjoyed The Glass Menagerie. I thought that the acting was good and I really enjoyed the story. Truthfully, the only thing that I did not like was the 15-minute intermission, since I was pretty well caught up in the story at that time.

For my paper, I am first going to talk about each character and what I liked and disliked about them. Next, I am going to talk about the actual story, and what I thought about it.

Tom is the first character that we meet. I really liked Tom the most for a couple of reasons. First of all, he doesn’t keep his feelings locked up inside. As we find out later, the rest of the family keeps themselves pretty well boxed up. By showing Tom’s feelings, the audience is able to get to know him better, and we relate to him in a way. We are able to grab onto a portion of his life, and learn from it. It also makes us question what we would have done, were we in the same situation.

Another reason that I liked him, was because we all of this is through his eyes. We don’t know how the others end up, but at the end of the play, we know what happens to Tom. Tom shows us before and after.

Amanda, the second character that we meet, really got on my nerves throughout the play. I enjoyed her sayings, such as “Sticks and stones can break our bones, but the expression on Mr. Garfinkel’s face won’t harm us!”, but I think that she put far too much responsibility on her children. She wants the best for them, but she goes to far sometimes. She doesn’t want Tom to end up like his father, and her daughter, in some ways, like her. She gets caught up in a fantasy world, and doesn’t listen to what her children are telling her. An example of this is when in the first scene, Amanda keeps going on about “our gentlemen callers”, showing us that they are also for her, not just for Laura.

Laura, the third character we meet, is extremely timid and caught up on her leg. She uses this to explain the situations around her, and lets it drag her down. I can see Laura growing up to be much like her mother, in that she wouldn’t go out much and socialize. The book compares Laura to her glass collection, and this is a good comparison. However, I think that she also treats other people as glass, as well as herself, as shown in the scene with Jim.

Jim, the last character, didn’t appeal to me very much. I thought that he was cruel, whether it was intended or not, because he lead Laura on for far to long near the end of the play. Instead of telling her first off, he dragged it on, as if he was just in it to talk about himself, and soak up the attention.

The actual story was very good, and the author did a very good job at hinting at things and letting us look for their meanings ourselves. One thing that I got from this is that what parents do has an effect on how the children turn out. Tom ends up following the path of his father, and Laura probably ends up following the path of her mother. Something else that I got from this is that we can never leave the past behind us, no matter how hard we try. At the end of the play, Tom is still haunted by his sister and still thinks about what he did to her.

Tennessee Williams does a good job of using symbolism in the play. One really good example of this is the glass menagerie. Laura is much like the glass in that she is fragile, and can be easily broken. One piece of her collection, the unicorn, is also used in the play to foreshadow a break in the normal affairs, Tom’s leaving, but also can be compared to Laura, in that it is different from the rest of her collection. The breaking of the unicorn’s horn goes along with Jim’s talking to Laura and getting her to see that she is much like everyone else. Once you get rid of the physical, or external differences, we see that we are all made of the same thing.

In conclusion, I enjoyed the play a lot. There wasn’t really a lot that I disliked about it, and thought that the author did a very good job of telling the story and using symbolism.

“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.” (Rousseau, Chapter I). Jean-Jacques Rousseau and The Social Contract had a large impact on Western Civilization in the late 18th century. Rousseau based his ideas on some of the writings of previous philosophers, trying to form a good political theory.

The Social Contract was developed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau around 1762, during the time of the scientific revolution and the Enlightenment. The Social Contract was based on the ideas of Baron de Montesquieu and John Locke. Rousseau was attempting to find a solution to the problems of individual rights and restrictions. He questions what will legitimatize the power masters have over others. Rousseau talks about both rule by the strongest individuals, or groups of individuals, and also discusses slavery.

Rousseau first discredits rule by the strongest. He states that “all power comes from God, I admit; but so does all sickness: does that mean that we are forbidden to call in the doctor?” (Rousseau, Chapter III). His point in saying this is that if the strongest is right, then, since God is the strongest, we should not go against his will and seek an end to an illness. Instead, we should accept it. Rousseau then states that rule by the strongest is not always the correct way to do things, and therefore a better way must exist.

Rousseau then goes on to talk about slavery, which in a way deals with his previous subject of rule by the strongest. He compares slavery with rule by a king, saying that individuals can alienate their freedom to a slave master, and that a group of individuals could do the same to a king. Rousseau tells us that “To alienate is to give or to sell” (Rousseau, Chapter IV). A slave sells himself to a master for protection and food, and in a way, people can sell or give themselves to a king for the same things. However, Rousseau tells us that kings also take individuals possessions as well, and eventually the people no longer have anything that they can call their own. At this time, and even before this, the upper class is taking a lot from the lower and middle class, in property, goods and services. Rousseau also tells us that no one can alienate another’s freedom, so therefore, people are born free to decide if they wish to join the compact.

Continuing with the attack of slavery, Rousseau then talks about war and how it relates to the state and the individual. He tells us that war is between to different societies or “...between State and State, and individuals are enemies only accidentally” (Rousseau, Chapter IV). Therefore, if someone surrenders to the opposing State, they can not be killed, since they are no longer part of their State and because no one can take away their freedom, or life. Since people can not be killed after they surrender, they also cannot be enslaved against their will. He talks about this to prove what he said earlier about rule of the strongest and how it cannot be.

Next Rousseau talks about the actual contract, and the problem that it must deal with. “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.” (Rousseau, Chapter VI). In other words, each person, and their goods or property, should be equally protected by all. Also, each person should still be free to choose what they wish to do, as long as it doesn’t go against the good of all. This makes sense since according to Rousseau, the Sovereign is made up of the people that formed the compact, and they will decide best for all.

Rousseau then talks about voting, and how it should not be drawn out in constant talks. He also tells us that fear will cause people to vote for those who hold power over them, once again attacking slavery. Rousseau also tells us that the majority wins in all votes, except for that which brings about the social compact, which needs to be chosen by all. If there is anyone who disagrees with the compact, then that doesn’t mean that it isn’t formed, rather that those who disagreed should leave, or follow the compact.

Next, Rousseau explains why the majority wins in debates. He tells us that upon formation of the compact, “This citizen gives his consent to all the laws, including those which are passed in spite of his opposition, and even those which punish him when he dares to break of them.” (Rousseau, Chapter II). Also that “When therefore the opinion that is contrary to my own prevails, this proves neither more nor less than that I was mistaken, and that what I thought to be the general will was not so.” (Rousseau, Chapter II).

The Social Contract has influenced western political institutions in a couple of ways. First of all, our view of slavery is similar to that of Rousseau’s, that people should not be enslaved against their will. Secondly, vote by the majority is popular as well, and we no longer are controlled by a king, but by the general will of all.

The Social Contract was a very important writing of it’s time. Not only did it have an influence when it was written, but it also has had an influence on some of today’s political policies and ideas.

Bibliography

Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Social Contract: Extracts. 1762. UW Green Bay. July 1998, <http://www.uwgb.edu/ganyardc/493102/library/rousseau.htm>.

Dennis Sherman and Joyce Salisbury. The West in the World, volume II. McGraw-Hill: Boston, 2001.

Notes

Originally written as a mid-term for a Foundations of Western Culture 2 course.

Modified: May 12th 2005