Weak EDIT

Let's begin with a discussion which is central to existence- Power.

There are several ways in which to understand such a broad and expansive term. There is power as in super-normal abilities, a power which creates an individual into a superman, according to Nietzsche. There's the type of power people hold over other individuals- such as a professor's power over a student. There is the type of power which creates and crafts these dynamics, these structures, these abnormalities- Knowledge.


Yet, what is the extent to this? To any of these? What does Nietzsche mean, for example, when he declares an individual is able, and individuals have, become super-humans? It is this type of power I shall deem Abnormal Knowledge. What kind of power relations do students have with teachers, professors, police officers, government agencies, and other institutionalized (or mass) forms of knowledge? It is this type of power I shall deem Relative Power. What kind of insights are we able to devise, understand, and attain in order to create power in a type of snowball affect gaining momentum with each additional thought? It is this power I shall refer to as Knowledge.

By self-study, one attains abnormal knowledge.By group study, one attains relative power. By thinking on one's own, one develops knowledge. 

Abnormal Knowledge is the type of knowledge only few attain- a power someone gains which is rare, which diverges from the typical appropriation of power and intellect. The majority understands the power difference between a trash man, a police officer, a uniformed soldier, and a homeless man. However, these structural binaries are more relative than we realize. Even understanding the relativity of such power dynamics is a type of abnormal knowledge- for does the homeless man not have more power than any of us realize? Which types of power? Here, the majority of readers begin to question their own understanding and perception of power dynamics, of who holds what power over who and for what reasons. Your entire reality is challenged in this single sentence, if on thinks about it. This is your introduction to Abnormal Knowledge. The more you find, the more you gain; the more you gain, the more you become. However, this is only one example of this type of power, it is the lead up into Relative Power, and to understand relative power, you must first attain this intro to Abnormal Power. 

Dear reader, you have just learned Relativity.

Shall I explain it in greater detail, or allow the concept to develop in your mind? Let's let you ponder this. Does a bum hold more Power than I've realized? Religiously, for example? With respect to survival skills, to take it a different direction? Or what about with ways of perceiving reality? 

Just to show you a counter- a homeless man, a wanderer, owns nothing, has nothing, and needs nothing. They (he or she) wish only to be connected to God. They are the holiest of holy people. They do not hide in their houses, they do not falsely worship money, they do not watch 12 hours of television a week, staring at a screen like a false prophet. They travel around, speaking their messages directly from the form, the omnipotent, that which some call God.. They are the modern Friar, the modern Pardoner, on their holy and ever-lasting pilgrimage. Oh, the beauty of this paradox. I explain to you how a bum holds power, and now a significant proportion of their power comes from your understanding of it. Back and forth, a reality which is capable of flowing both ways. This is Relativity. 

The homeless man is powerless.
The homeless man is a paragon of Power.

Both equally true, both equally untrue. 

Does this inspire you to become homeless? Doubtful. Perhaps this is why they are given religious Power, a type of Abnormal Power which the majority of us do not quite understand. We would not, they will.

Abnormal Power comes from Abnormal Knowledge, both being limitless, expanding into imaginative and creative genius.


Have you found there are several groups of people who communicate telepathically? And if so, does this not mean we might speak to other species, as a result? Several authors have written of this, even auto-biographical accounts have been written explaining such a communicative possibility. Entire religions are based around this premise. You are limited by belief, and belief alone. Australian Aborigines, for example, have invited those to travel the desert with them, communicating almost solely from telepathic thought. This could be scientifically justified. Thoughts being things (the paramount theory to quantum physics), in fact, little particles known as quaints, are continually released from your mind. If your mind  realizes it might grab these particles from others, allowing them to electronically surge, one could easily read another's mind or speak to them through thoughts.

When you speak to another, for example, now I'm speaking verbally and not textually (although the point is the very same phenomenon occurs textually), have you never said a word you wouldn't normally have said? Have you not heard your partner say something which sounded like it was from you and not from them? Not to mention, when you are speaking for minutes and minutes and minutes, with a few people looking at you, do you think you're the one who thinks every single word through? Your mind covers the topics, the main areas, the figurative grammer, yet who creates the smoothness? It comes as a result of our quaints interacting.

Knowledge is power.

When another is speaking, what would occur if you repeated a word from Latin over and over and over, at different paces? What would happen if you found an iambic and rhythmic phrase and tapped your foot repeatedly while they were speaking? Or if you silent your mind, listening, hovering, and suddenly repeat each of their words backwards to trip them up, to cause their mind to revert for a moment, making their train of thought interrupted, effecting their physical speech? Would your thoughts affect their own?

Knowledge is power.




  

Learning from Aging Youth: Dickens and Bildungsroman

Throughout the trials and tribulations of life, individuals seek to find themselves; to find who they are, and to find who they are to become. This transformation, evolution, and development are central to the human condition- a development full of ambiguities, pressures, responsibilities, and plight. This universal progression from one stage to the next is replicated heavily in literature, typically in the form known as bildungsroman. One of the purposes of literature is to track these patterns with the hopes of learning from multiple perspectives, and finding ways human beings are able to relate to one another, both young to old and vice versa. Through what ways does Dickens utilize the Bildungsroman form to explain and understand a protagonist's transformation, or lack there-of? Throughout the bildungsroman tale Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, Pip remains a figurehead of character transformations, both socially as well as psychologically.

To begin, what exactly is this form known as a bildungsroman? A bildungsroman is a form of prose which tracks the progression of a protagonist from youth into adulthood. Through this process, there arise several complications the main character must overcome, both internally, as well as externally. Thus, the character is never the same at the end of the text as they were at the beginning of the text, otherwise, it would not be a bildungsroman. This form remains extremely popular because it is universal- every individual has transformed from a child into an adult, and through this transformation, has been forced to overcome several obstacles in order to attain this position. Through the analysis of a bildungsroman, one gains insight into not only how a character changes psychologically, socially, and even physically, but also regarding which characteristics and changes benefit an individual inside of specific societies, which change from generation to generation. Thus, one gains knowledge into the author’s mind, for protagonists almost invariably exhibit the changes an author believes to be beneficial inside of the society they remain.

Great Expectations begins with Pip's very first character transformation- his name. Pip initiates the text by giving the reader background regarding the historical relation of his family name, and how his name came to be adjusted. Initially, the reader is introduced with this concept to show that names will become central to a character’s identity, both explicitly and implicitly. This is shown by Dickens’ authorial decision to begin his very first paragraph with this discussion. Pip explains his name is a combination stemming from both his familial history and his own creative brevity, "My father's name being Pirrip, and my Christian name Philip, my infant tongue could make of both names nothing longer or more explicit than Pip. So, I called myself Pip, and came to be called Pip." (Pg. 9). By beginning the text this way, in a broad sense, Dickens begins to emphasize the idea that his tales are about a child, a child who grows into his own self, who creates his own image, who becomes his own man. Obviously, Pip's tale begins with Pip as a young child, so young, in fact, he is incapable of pronouncing a name which was given to him. This foreshadows two things. Firstly, just like his name was forced, society will begin to push certain expectations onto Pip; he will be expected to be someone, to receive a title which is not necessarily and innately his own. As a result, symbolized through his altercation of his original name, Pip will form fit such expectations to suit his own nefarious purposes. Secondly, Dickens foreshadows the fact that at some point in the tale there shall be a clash of inner and outer identities, one presented and one expected. This proves to be an extremely powerful way to begin a novel. First, Dickens exemplifies this bildungsroman will take on its strictest form, a protagonist's growth from infancy to adulthood. Second, Dickens’ text relates to a very broad audience- Pip's struggle both overtly and metaphorically relate to something every individual is capable of relating to- titles. The brevaciousness of Pip's name also suggests he shall have a talent for taking large ideas, which intertwine to several areas (EG his name's relation to his father and Christian nomenclature), and collapsing them into something minute and powerful. The text, from the very first paragraph, provides proof that the protagonist transforms, from Pillip and Phillip to Pip.

Furthermore, Pip finds himself an adoptee, a conscientious authorial decision adding to Pip's earliest psychological plights and causing readerly empathy. Not only is this bildungsroman a tale of a youthful figure growing into adulthood, but it's one where the character must overcome rarities an average person might fail to otherwise relate to. Pip is taken away from his parents and is raised by a man named Joe- a figurehead for the "average Joe." Nearly from birth, Pip begins his earliest character transformations- both from his names as well as from his status as an orphan. He begins as Phillip, with parents connected to even his name, and transforms to an orphan named Pip, a name with only the remembrance of his family. Both of these elements combine to introduce the reader to this powerful form of a bildungsroman- two elements people are able to relate to, if nothing else. Technically, Pip's orphanhood and brevacious namesake is extremely rich with detail, both foreshadowing future changes, as well as showing changes from his past. This further exemplifies the bildungsroman's essence of continual transformative change, also from an early point in the novel.

Next, Dickens alters Pip’s identity once again. Pip becomes Mr. Pip. Biddy, probably his nearest friend, in addition to Joe, begin to give him a title of complete respect, one which he had not yet attained. To this, Pip responds, partially startled, and furthermore uncomfortable, “Not to mention your calling me Mr. Pip—which appears to me to be in bad taste, Biddy—What do you mean?” Although this statement was mid-argument between the two, it is also significant to the progression of Pip’s character throughout the narrative. Pip becomes completely detached, which Biddy seems to be claiming is a Mr., yet Pip is hesitant as to whether or not this title is something he wishes to have. There seem to be two vehicles seeking to drive Pip’s character throughout the text, one which prays for Pip to cling, and one which seeks for Pip to let go. Of course, this stems from his psychological state. Pip’s psychological reaction to his adoption, for example, pushes for him to let go, an underlying Hindu philosophy. Society in general, which seeks to Christianize him, seeks for him to cling to his past. The final progression seems to be Pip’s refusal to fall under either constraint, he instead becomes his own combination. For example, he refuses to get married, which is an extension of his refusal to become Christianized, and he also refuses to let go of his family. At the end of the text, he overcomes these obstacles. He is neither Mr. Pip, nor his child form of Pip, nor his infant form as Phillip, but instead, a grown man who exemplifies the power of not wanting. Therefore, Pip changes through, at the very least, four character types- furthermore exemplifying the role of protagonist transformation in the bildungsroman.

Through the study of psychological development stages one begins to understand the purpose for the bildungsroman form, humans, just like characters, tend to follow a very distinct path as they continue on in this living form. These stages, while they may be interrupted (which tends to cause psychological disorders), are parts to our lives where we are able to view another's individual changes and adapt appropriately. For this reason, if for nothing else, this bildungsroman form becomes extremely persuasive, enticing, and rhetorically powerful. A reader is able to develop through these stages with their characters, fix any type of disorders they have previously developed, and learn for their future. Now, the idea here being as an individual reads a book they go through these stages with the protagonist, and through these stages, they are able to recover from any psychological disadvantages they have attained in previously. As Martha Cliffe points out, “At the same time, the elements of each stage mature through each successive stage. This relationship suggests the possibility of developmental recovery at each stage” (Cliffe Pg. 7). What this means is recovery for past stages are possible through future stages. Furthermore, the inverse could be argued. Thus, as a result, an individual could theoretically recover from any stage so long as an author’s protagonist exemplifies even one development.  

To provide one with a short breakdown of developmental psychology, the essay shall focus on both Erikson and Piaget. Erikson’s development has eight stages whereas Piaget has five- both transitioning from infancy into old age. Neo-Eriksonian and Neo-Piagetian psychologists, or those who continue on with their approach to developmental psychology, have extended each to a more focused twenty-five stage system, composed of primary (or original stages), and sub-stages. Thus, the Neo-Piaget’s has five stages with five sub-stages for each. Piaget’s stages are typically displayed as follows- reflexive, sensorimotor, perioperational, abstract, and collective intelligence. Each of these are broken up into five sub-stages, known as coordination, hierarchization, systematization, multiplication, and integration.

The sub-stages are in order because first an individual coordinates a talent, desire, or reaction (that is creates the thought/reaction), then they place differences in a type of hierarchy system (that is arranging it in some cohesive list with a peak and a base), then they systemize (that is place each level of the hierarchy into a specific system, either expanding or compacting the hierarchy), then they multiply (that is apply it to various other subareas and other stages), then finally they integrate (which is putting such emotions, reactions, and talents into action rather than just cognizing through them, or integrating them into their life). Piaget’s stages which show a rapid transformation to Pip’s character, providing structure to the Bildungsroman, are the perioperational, sensorimotor, and the abstract. Some of the Eriksonian stages Pip exemplifies are hyper-participatory (social mutuality), and pre-participatory (socio-affectiveness). Also, when the term “fixation” occurs, it means there is a type of disequilibrium psychologically speaking, so to speak. The character becomes fixated and stuck on one side of what each stage develops. For example, the socio-affective stage logically develops trust and mistrust- so a character might become fixated on one or the other.

To begin, Joe, who is supposed to serve as Pip’s psychological buffer (a buffer is like a figurative psychological anchor meant to guide through example), exhibits a disequilibrium regarding his sensorimotor and perioperational development. This disequilibrium leads to his social awkwardness and an inferiority complex, most noticeably with his meeting with Mrs. Havisham.

 “It was quite in vain for me to endeavor to make him sensible that he ought to speak to Miss Havisham. The more I made faces and gestures to him to do it, the more confidential, argumentative, and polite, he persisted in being to Me.” (Dickens, Pg. 82).

Pip’s reaction to his buffer’s psychological fixation could go one of two ways. He could either follow along with Joe’s psychological disadvantage, or he could recognize them and improve his own through observation. Pip exhibits a complication with his abstract Neo-Piagetian stages, mostly as a result of Joe’s perioperational unbalance, but also due to his status as an orphan. Pip struggles with intimacy, identity, and isolationism. This is further shown through Pip’s seeming addiction to an unrequited love- by name, Stella. As Pip reflects on this romance, he gains insight to his own psychological problems, he states

“From Estella she looked at me, with a searching glance that seemed to pry into my heart and probe its wounds […] I saw in this that Estella was set to wreak Miss Havisham’s revenge on me, and that she was not to be given to me until she had gratified it for a term.“ (Dickens, Pg.228-229).

 However, this realization appears to be a turning state, for after this, Pip initiates his first progression away from his abstract multiplication deficiency, inacted partially as a result of his buffer. His final step away from this is his final talk of marriage to Biddy, where he claims not to need a wife, symbolically representing his growth into a healthy abstract stage. This is further exemplified with the final scene of the novel, with both Estella and Pip’s decision to remain “friends apart.” (Pg 358). Thus, Pip transforms away from a negative perioperational as well as abstract fixation, and becomes psychologically healthy. This, of course, further proves Pip’s change, as well as the bildungsroman’s inner link to developmental psychology.

Dickens also utilizes Pip to criticize and satirize institutionalization- mainly through the form of religious satire. As a result, this becomes a direct play on Pip’s neo-Eriksonian stage known as socio-affective stage, which plays into the substages known as trust vs. mistrust, as well as sociability vs. unsociability. Essentially, the transition develops Dickens’ critical response to institutions for slithering their way into the lives and business of, well, frankly, anything they controllable, and inversely, anyone who would not conform to their standards- hypocritically or not. One of the most heartfelt responses from Pip comes as a direct response to institutionalization, where he claims,

"As I passed the church, I felt (as I had felt during service in the morning a sublime compassion for the poor creatures who were destined to go there, Sunday after Sunday, all their lives through, and to lie obscurely at last among the low green mounds. I promised myself that I would do something for them one of these days [...]" (Dickens, Pg. 115).

One of the central ideas here being as a result of Pip’s experience with the institutionalized system, he develops a conflict in his socio-affective stage, which causes him to not only mistrust and dislike institutions, but also causes him to wish to aid those who find themselves trapped inside of them. Dickens, whose focus is institutions in general, here makes a subtle self-promise to aid those who do not wish to support such causes, the relatively obscure who meander somewhere week by week because it has become what is expected. Most do not attend because they wish to, nor because they enjoy, nor because it gives them a feeling of love and joy and graciousness, no, here Dickens shows it is mere habit, peer pressure, and institutionalized control. As a result of reflecting on this, Pip’s collective sociality stage becomes slightly disillusioned. He does not feel a desire to participate in any community groups, nor any collective meetings (like church). This development comes as a reaction to his socio-affective stage as a youth, where collective groups (and institutionalized structures) are unhelpful, promote negative reinforcement, and are hypocritical. For example, his experience at the school where his teacher was continually sleeping, the dinner with the members of the church who non-stop bashed him for ungratitude (quite hypocritically, of course), and each of these figures seeking to punish and criticize rather than offering support or positive reinforcement, all represent his socio-affective stage’s transformation which developed his collective sociality.

Pip's sister, "Mrs. Joe Gargery," replicates this strive to branch away from socially determined statuses, which exemplifies a fixation in her Neo-Piagetian stage known as abstract hierarchization. She essentially raises Joe, her husband, as well as Pip, her brother, through force. In this sense, she attempts to retain a position of power by any means necessary, regardless of her explicit and wild physical force against household males. This is perhaps socially abnormal, divergent from timely social expectations. Psychologically speaking, she does this as a result of her inability to cope with social mechanisms and hierarchy systems. She becomes a character who resorts to force in hopes of gaining, guiding, and separating from her social role. Instantaneously, this caste separation (or attempt, none-the-less), provide the reader with sympathy for Pip and Joe, while sub-sequentially undermining their "masculinity." Both figures resort to a type of "turn the other cheek" philosophy- a flee rather than fight system of neurological reactions. Mrs. Joe repeatedly draws forth a wishful longing to be separated from her status as a "blacksmiths wife." Her desire to escape from her socio-economic position, comparing herself to a slave, she states "'Perhaps if I weren't a blacksmith's wife, and (what's the same thing) a slave with her apron never off, I should have been to hear the Carols,' said Mrs. Joe." (Dickens, Pg. 23). Here, a heavy critique of society’s treatment of females in her socio-economic class is proposed. She becomes a family slave, one forced to the confinement of her house to wait, clean, and cook for the males. She is paid with housing and food, a house-mom and a slave, a fairly bitter metaphor. This establishes her incapability to accept social statuses, which show an early struggle with her development through abstract hierarchization. As a result of his sister's psychological complications, Pip picks up the same characteristics. However, due to the power structure of his home, Pip becomes the passive one (IE the one being hit) where his sister remains the aggressive one (Ie the one hitting). Regardless, he exemplifies the same problems coping with a hierarchy system, understanding and accepting socio-political classes, as well as finding a nurturing relationship. This stems, like his sister, from his abstract hierarchizational stage, plays forth and affects the majority of other stages through his abstract multiplication stage, and affects his actions as he seeks to integrate such emotions and characteristics.

Even further than his sister, however, Pip’s trouble within these stages is debatably more extreme, mostly due to his adoption. His adoption caused him to realize there was a difference between his birth parents and the parents who raised him. Typically, this results in a type of denial, for coping with two different parents (one real, one unreal), is a complicated issue. He finds himself with these essentially unreal parents, and as a result, wishes to flee from their socio-economic class. Pip does in fact overcome this. Near the end of the text, as Pip returns to his home town, Pip begins to not only accept the hierarchy, but comes to fully love Joe as a father figure regardless of his birthright. This symbolizes and exemplifies one of the largest protagonist changes this Bildungsroman has- Pip's final acceptance of his birthright.

To carry forth with a further exploration of Erikson’s stages, individuals, due to their environment, parenting structure, and institutionalized influence, develop differently during each stage. When an individual develops any kind of character flaw, so to speak, it can be paralleled to one stage. Just to make an aside, this also relates to any psychological disorder, even those which are instilled before birth. These psychological disorders are first brought out and externalized as a result of an individual’s reaction to one stage. So, if one might find which stage, or happen to stumble upon this stage in a text, they will be able to overcome such disorders. One example of Pip’s largest complication comes from his very first development, which is typically from infancy to birth. Here, a child’s dependency and independence is developed. If a child develops a fixation during this period, they will later be either distrustful or overly trusting. Pip exemplifies one who from early on has dependency issues, but later overcomes such problems becoming a trusting individual. The significance of this, of course, is Pip’s progression in and out of this stage which is instilled from infancy, then developed throughout life. Two examples to prove this are Pip’s inability to trust his lover, Estella, and his later relationship to Biddy. Relationships, because they are so central to an individual’s heart and soul, become an extremely powerful way to understand one’s psyche. This first stage thus continues to develop up into the sixth stage.

The psychosocial stage six is typically viewed during early adulthood, when children begin exploring with relationships. This stage becomes vital to their development of commitment and trust, intimacy and isolation, depression and joy. Now, this stage is not necessarily when a character begins to find romances. It could also be when they begin to make friends with the inverse sex. Pip does not ever have any friends who are female, up until Biddy. This becomes exceptionally interesting psychologically because Biddy, being his first female connection outside of his family, is also his first true friend. Prior to his relationship with Biddy, Pip wishes to be with Estella, who is unnurturing, distrustful, and lacks any type of positive emotions toward Pip. Yet, Pip wishes to stay with her, but for what reason(s)? It comes partially as a result of his relationship with Mrs. Joe.

Mrs. Joe, his sister, who is his earliest female relationship, is abusive, cold, and unfriendly. Estella, too, is abusive, cold, and unfriendly. Psychologically speaking these characters fit a perfectly logical system- Pip first interacts with his sister, which causes him to find his first romance, Estella. His second interaction is with Biddy, which causes him to find a lasting relationship to Biddy- probably as a result of her being the only female figure who has ever given him any type of positive reinforcement what-so-ever. Thus, another psychological transformation is shown with Pip.

One example of Pip’s character progressing through a stage healthily is his development through Erikson’s seventh stage. The seventh stage of psychosocial development comes during adulthood, mostly as a result of career decisions. During this stage, one’s feeling of worth, productivity, and social roles arise. Those who are not positively reinforced during this stage begin to doubt their contribution to society at large, as well as their own feeling of worth internally. Pip seems to be fairly strong during this stage, mostly due to his positive reinforcement of gaining money and making it into a socio-economic class which is above his birth level. Pip is able to communicate well with others, even those older than him. He’s able to contribute to society, for example, by his attempt to get his roommate a stronger position in society.

It is worth noting what is stated by Gerald Young in his New Ideas in Psychology, particularly when viewing these psychological stages in terms of a bildungsroman. Young states

“The stages are no magical transformations that suddenly bring more advanced thinking across all areas of cognition once they appear, nor are they divorced from environmental influences and constraints. Nevertheless, they are valid inferences from the pattern of observations and empirical studies of children’s thinking and thinking across the lifespan.” (Pg. 5).

This idea is fairly central to understanding the psyches of characters, and the role of psychological changes characters exhibit. Pip, for example, develops complications in several of the stages, but overcomes them throughout the progression of the text. However, it is not instant. It is not some transformation where Pip has problems on Pg. 222, which he overcomes completely on Pg. 223. It is a smooth and on-going transformation of character growth. The bildungsroman is of course a tale regarding a youth becoming an adult. And, through the process, overcoming several obstacles, both internally and externally, to land in a position of psychological comfort. A few ideas here must be arisen. Firstly, what this type of text does to a reader. As a result of narration, the reader becomes intertwined with the psyche of the narrator. The reader not only progresses through the action of the tale with the narrator, but also through these psychological stages. So, read carefully! Otherwise, you may find yourself a bad psychologist who develops psychological trauma rather than restoring balance and equilibrium. Of course, the power and significance of such depends invariably on how seriously a reader immerses themselves into the artform.

Furthermore, books become types of portals in and out of psychological states, and although most jump back and forth, they do not necessarily realize this. Thus, if you read a book, for example, Great Expectations, in which the author and characters have psychological issues regarding social statuses, cross sexual interaction, trust issues, abuse issues, and abandonment issues, it is more than likely your own psyche gets reformed in those directions. However, through reflection, one is able to move beyond such complications, strengthening their psyche like a muscle which was torn at the gym. Furthermore, this fine line between genius and insanity, one which tampers back and forth between psychological playing fields, is what people develop an interest for. Those who are “normal” are able to temporarily cross their own boundaries, explore another’s intellectual and imaginative faculty, and may momentarily tap into their own genius through a reaction of the author’s.

To conclude, and to take a step away from Dickens and his texts, this bildungsroman form becomes central to psychological development and improvement. A text becomes an alternate type of prescription. We go through psychological stages, and get caught up on problems as a result of stories that occur. When we read a text, we also go through those stories both imaginatively, as well as psychologically. And, as a result, we are able to gain the same advantages a character attains. Also, an individual gains psychological strength from progressing beyond what they have read into the text. Even the words themselves, prescription and prescribe, etymologically stem from the Latin word scriptor, which means to write- clearly prescripting and scribing have a more interlinked relationship than most realize. Texts, and Art in general, are better doctors than doctors, mostly because it is an individual’s own reaction. Furthermore, if humans actually begin to trust one another, we might even let them diagnose themselves. What an idea!

                                    Only the great overcome expectations

                                    Only the good become expectations

                                    Only the best make humor of them.

Hegemonic Power Structures Abusing Their Power

Psychological states are types of reality tunnels, a reality tunnel being a type of philosophical and political agenda people get caught into, like tunnel vision. The significance to philosophical reality tunnels, at least in regards to modern philosophy, is the hegemonic structure understands them to an extent, and the majority, in a modern day population being disconnected from this hegemonic power, does not. First, let's unpack a couple of definitions. First, the hegemony is a group of individuals who withhold power over other groups, typically referred to as the subalterns. These terms are typically utilized in regards to colonialized countries- for example, as America was colonialized, England was the hegemonic power who essentially controlled the subaltern. It was a rare case where the subalterns retaliated and gained power, creating a new hegemony. This term may also be utilized with respect to single nations. In a Democracy, for example, the hegemony ought to be the majority- for who else is supposed to hold power? The majority are supposed to determine laws, elect officials, and guide the nation. Thus, in a true democracy, the hegemony is the majority, and the majority withholds power over all of the other smaller groups, who are the subalterns. America, however, does not follow this. It is more of a capitalistic republic than it is a democracy. The individuals who withhold the most power in our country are not the middle class, suburban families, but the top 5% of the socio-economic ladder. These individuals hold power over politicians (they're the ones who control lobbyist's, they're the ones who give money to the political parties, they're the ones who control the media, etc..). This 5% hegemony learns how to control people because they're the ones who control every single level to these huge corporations- the CEO's down to the factory workers. It is their job to control people. Then, they take it a step further, learning how to control the markets, the stocks, the consumers, and the average American who fulfills the role of the majority. As a result, all of their decisions become reality. They are the hegemony, controlling all of these subaltern groups which compose the rest of America.

There are individuals who have begun to understand how this hegemony functions, and through which techniques they control people. They control them through reality tunnels, purchasing power, food, drugs (illegal and legal), products, advertisements, etc.. One of the least known techniques, and most affective, is reality tunnels. Learning about reality tunnels provides individuals with a way to escape. Modern day philosophers, such as Robert Anton Wilson, claim that the concept of reality tunnels are utilized by groups such as the illuminati. I, however, believe it is not merely utilized by them, but more so by this hegemonic and over-ruling group. The fundamental concept is this- each individual finds themselves in a little bubble through which they view the outside world. Imagine it this way, everyone walks around with these glasses on which filters their perception of the outside world. A typical politician filters everything they hear to form-fit into their political agenda. A drug addict, for example, walks around and filters out every conversation and relates everything back to drugs. A vegetarian filters every conversation to be based around meat-eaters and non-meat eaters. Each individual is inside of one of these, and very few realize there are ways in and out and even in-between them. Several philosophers, being stuck inside of their own philosophical reality tunnel, recommend the best way to transgress through varying tunnels is through different philsophical approaches. One day, an individual might understand everything they hear through the eyes of a nihilist. The next day, through the eyes of a humanist. Religious folk do the very same thing, they understand their reality purely and solely through their own religious discourse, yet what if their religion changed day to day? The key idea is the majority falls into the same tunnel, and this is established, created, and controlled by the hegemony who rules. This hegemony wishes to control people to keep them in their specific socio-economic class, to keep them afraid of challenging power structures, to keep power for them without spreading it too evenly throughout the figurative pyramid of power. It is not pure democracy, where people, where majorities, decide. It is where majorities are controlled, and decide afterwards.

Further than this, people try to force people into psychological frameworks, including disorders, in order to either eliminate their competition, or to utilize them for their own political purposes. Think of it this way, in order for those who have power now to remain in power. You may not remain there for long, but you definitely test drive them. As you test drive them, your reality is altered. Awareness allows for you to conscientiously control these. Yet, who is the group who decides which of these is psychologically unstable? My answer is the hegemony.

Reality tunnels, and jumping back and forth into new ones, requires a somewhat open mind. Mostly because what the majority thinks of as a miracle, magic, or impossibilities, are complete possibilities in other reality tunnels. Also, the majority of humans find themselves believing something they innately wish they did not believe. There are ways in and out of any belief, you simply must open your mind, craft dig new tunnels, and learn from those who have crafted ones before your own.

Furthermore, the same applies to psychological groups who the majority deem crazy. The majority deems them crazy simply because they fail to recognize their own reality tunnel. Vice versa, a genius is typically one who begins a conversation inside of someone else's, then guides them to one which is completely unique.I'd argue the hegemony simply declares people crazy when they cannot per-say disprove nor support the agenda being promoted. It clashes with them, and so, they attack. Yet, who would win this debate in contemporary society? Insane asylums speak loudly enough.
___________________________________________________

There is a thesis proposed by Anton, in which he states, “what the thinker thinks, the prover proves.”
This phrase is monumental. Linking back to classical literature, and even the origins of texts, we think of things such as Odysseus, an adventure between magicians, Gods, monsters, etc.. The key to this is, it happened, at least on certain levels, and probably more literally than we realize. Now, to take this idea further, an author, or an auctor (the origin to our word actor, because they act in and out of divergent realities), are also originators.
An originator writes reality. They think, the outside world proves. This occurs within contemporary society with novelists, certainly, but also philosophers and scientists. No single group is solely equipped with this power- it's instead spread throughout various groups, but they are groups I believe you have the intellectual capacity to understand, interpret, and re-create.

However, to take this further, it also links back to our modern understanding of reality. The majority finds their realities based around science. Other societies have found their realities based upon poetry. Others based upon philosophy. The ancients diverged between philosophy and spoken word (typically in the form of epics and myths). However, there have been divergences away from these. For example, mid 18^th century with the rise of the gothic tale, ghosts were popularly believed to be as real as you and I, and I'd say this is due to the hegemony. Yet, were they? Thoughts become things, it is often said. It was what their reality was based off. Now, we find science our main guide, and not just science, but misunderstood science. Every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction. A fact. NOW. Before, things were different. It might be true, it may not, but the more people who believe, the stronger the belief becomes. Although there are individuals who are able to create a strong reality without groups.

We base our realities off of a scientific mind set, mostly because we have had a huge uprise in technology, which stems from science. We are driven by forces, such as electronics: televisions, laptops, ipods, which were crafted and based around scientific theories. Thus, the majority finds themselves stuck here, mostly because the hegemony gains, but also because it is reshaped to convince people it is what they desire, need, want, and believe.

With regards to philosophy, it began with poets creating and crafting a reality, then the philosophers sought to prove it. There are so many unexplainable things which happen around us, most just fail to recognize and explain them. Poets sought to translate these into words. New poetic theories arose and philosopher's sought ways to prove these "miracles." Furthermore, these things change. What has yet to be explained and proven has yet to be set in writing. This extends further. There have been several types of intellectual wars, where disagreements between varying art forms sought to prove inverse concepts. Painters, poets, and novelists utilized cubism, surrealism, and abstractionism. Philosophers found these concepts divergent from their path of philosophy, so it got pawned off to psychologists, which had a sudden raise in popularity. Thus, psychology found its first major uprise. However, this irritated artists, being that they realized these were not merely psychological, but actual altercations to their self-perceived reality (along with a counter known as subjectivism). There became a clash of realities, which caused a major complication. The intellectual reality became a type of chimera, a multi-headed monster, with several groups in several divergent areas in turmoil, all clashing with one another intellectually. This created intellectual warfare. Next, there was physical war. This intellectual chimera continued on into the 90's, recently turning away into a purely technological, digital, and scientific mindset.

 Every thought is energy. Thoughts compile, gaining momentum in a snowball affect, where one can create a snowman, or kick it to the ground.

The other tragic aspect to our modern day understanding of literary and scholarly works stem from people's mistrust of original thought; they only trust people who name drop and jump around announcing their knowledge of several discourses of schools of criticism. Individual thought, being unique, goes around grabbing individuals, 1 by 1. Group mentality goes around grabbing groups, hundreds by hundreds. For example, mentioning a deconstructionist mindset, a structuralist set, a new historicism set, a post colonial set, tends to bring more people on board with the scholarly discourse. However, if these weren’t mentioned, each of these groups would almost definitely cast aside each thought. The problem is it makes it to where the knowledge is limited- the only individuals who understand terms within this discourse are people who have studied it, not the majority. It makes texts lack accessibility, yet gives rise to a hegemonic mind-set. Still, without such discourse, art is viewed as immature, unscholarly, as if they lack insight.

We live in an era and generation which does not promote original thinking.

The point is someone is trying to drive your reality and they are trying to drive mine. The extent of this is hard to explain, for truly, how much power does this top few percent hold over us? The products you buy, the essays you write, which statuses you like, the arrangement of words on a page. A nation of the free, as if. Someone is abusing their power to an absurd degree.

Knowledge is power, and someone’s not only holding me back, but they’re holding you back, too.

Works Cited

Dickens, Charles, and Edgar Rosenberg. Great Expectations: Authoritative Text, Backgrounds, Contexts, Criticism. New York: Norton, 1999. Print.

Text of Great Expectations with critical essays added. Also, some commentary from the editor,

Rosenberg.

"Erikson's Psychosocial Stages Summary Chart." Psychology. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <http://psychology.about.com/library/bl_psychosocial_summary.htm>.

A few charts depicting the 8 stages of Erikson’s psychological stages. Not extremely in depth, but fairly concise summaries of each. Also good for understanding the typical age differences between the various stages. Utilized in my 3^rd and 2^nd to last paragraph.

"Piaget." 's Developmental Theory. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/piaget.htm>.

Website analyzing Piaget’s complicated structure of systems. Fairly professionally done, and put into simple to understand language.

Young, Gerald. "A Unitary Neo-Piagetian/Neo-Eriksonian Model of Development: Fundamental Assumptions and Meta-issues." New Ideas in Psychology (2011). Print.

"Background and Key Concepts of Piaget's Theory." About.com Psychology. Web. 18 Apr. 2012. <http://psychology.about.com/od/piagetstheory/a/keyconcepts.htm>.

The site is not quite as professional as I would desire, however, it is a fairly expansive website. It’s peer reviewed so far as I can tell, so it’s not too bad. The site covers some key concepts regarding Piaget’s model, as well as exemplifying what happens when individuals get stuck during specific stages.

Journal article going into depth regarding both Erikson’s stages, as well as Piagets. The article tries to combine both views, creating a type of unified system of developmental psychology, which is a pretty arduous task. Not simple language, although explained very in detail. Additionally, seeks to draw parallels between stages of development, and substages, which fill in the gaps between years.

Learning from Aging Youth: Dickens and Bildungsroman

Throughout the trials and tribulations of life, individuals seek to find themselves; to find who they are, and to find who they are to become. This transformation, evolution, and development are central to the human condition- a development full of ambiguities, pressures, responsibilities, and plight. This universal progression from is replicated heavily in the majority of literature, typically in the form known as bildungsroman. One of the purposes of literature is to track these patterns with the hopes of learning from multiple perspectives, and finding ways human beings are able to relate to one another, both young to old and vice versa. Through what ways does Dickens utilize the Bildungsroman form to understand a protagonist's transformation, or lack there-of? Throughout the bildungsroman tale Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, Pip remains a figurehead of character transformations, both psychologically as well as socially.

To begin, what exactly is this form known as a bildungsroman? A bildungsroman is a form of prose which tracks the progression of a protagonist from youth into adulthood. Through this process, there arise several complications the main character must overcome, both internally, as well as externally. Thus, the character is never the same at the end of the text as they were at the beginning of the text, otherwise, it would not be a bildungsroman. The protagonist typically begins at an initial stage, then leaves "home," goes through a series of journey's, then later returns a changed character. Through this journey, the character fixes all of the psychological problems exemplified at the beginning of the text. Then, when they return, they find psychological comfort. This form remains extremely popular because it is universal- every individual has transformed from a child into an adult, and through this transformation, has been forced to overcome several obstacles in order to attain this position. Through the analysis of a bildungsroman, one gains insight into not only how a character changes psychologically, socially, and even physically, but also gains helpful insight regarding which characteristics and changes benefit an individual inside of specific societies. Thus, one gains knowledge into the author’s mind, for protagonists almost invariably exhibit the changes an author believes to be beneficial inside of the society they remain.

Great Expectations begins with Pip's very first character transformation- his name. Pip initiates the text by giving the reader background regarding the historical relation of his family name, and how his name came to be adjusted. Initially, the reader is introduced with this concept to show that names will become central to a character’s identity, both explicitly and implicitly. This is shown by Dickens’ authorial decision to begin his very first paragraph with this discussion. Pip explains his name is a combination stemming from both his familial history and his own creative brevity, "My father's name being Pirrip, and my Christian name Philip, my infant tongue could make of both names nothing longer or more explicit than Pip. So, I called myself Pip, and came to be called Pip." (Pg. 9). By beginning the text this way, in a broad sense, Dickens begins to emphasize the idea that his tales are about a child, a child who grows into his own self, who creates his own image, who becomes his own man.

Obviously, Pip's tale begins with Pip as a young child, so young, in fact, he is incapable of pronouncing a name which was given to him. This foreshadows two things, firstly, just like his name, society will begin to push certain expectations onto Pip, he will be expected to be someone, to receive a title which is not necessarily innately his own. As a result, symbolized through his altercation of his original name, Pip will form fit such expectations to suit his own nefarious purposes. Secondly, Dickens foreshadows the fact that at some point in the tale there shall be a clash of inner and outer identities, one presented and one expected. This proves to be an extremely powerful way to begin a novel. First, Dickens’ exemplifies this bildungsroman will take on its strictest form, a protagonist's growth from infancy to adulthood. Secondly, Dickens’ text relates to a very broad audience- Pip's struggle both overtly and metaphorically relate to something every individual is capable of relating to- titles. The brevaciousness of Pip's name also suggests he shall have a talent for taking large ideas, which intertwine to several areas (EG his name's relation to his father and Christian nomenclature), and collapsing them into something minute and powerful. The text, from the very first paragraph, provides proof that the protagonist transforms.

Furthermore, Pip finds himself an adoptee, a conscientious authorial decision adding to Pip's earliest plights and causing readerly empathy. Not only is this bildungsroman a tale of a youthful figure growing into adulthood, but it's one where the character must overcome rarities an average person might fail to otherwise relate to. Pip is taken away from his parents and is raised by a man named Joe- a figurehead for the "average Joe." Nearly from birth, Pip begins his earliest character transformations- both from his names as well as from his status as an orphan. He begins as Philip, with parents connected to even his name, and transforms to an orphan named Pip, a name with only the remembrance of his family. Both of these elements combine to introduce the reader to this powerful form of a bildungsroman, two elements people are able to relate to, if nothing else. Technically, Pip's orphan hood and brevacious namesake is extremely rich with detail, both foreshadowing future changes, as well as showing changes from his past. This further exemplifies the bildungsroman's essence of continual transformative change, also from an early point in the novel.

Next, Dickens alters Pip’s identity once again. Pip becomes Mr. Pip. Biddy, probably his nearest friend, in addition to Joe, begin to give him a title of complete respect, one which he had not yet attained. To this, Pip responds, partially startled, and furthermore uncomfortable, “Not to mention your calling me Mr. Pip—which appears to me to be in bad taste, Biddy—What do you mean?” Although this statement was mid argument between the two of them, it is also significant to the progression of Pip’s character throughout the narrative. Pip becomes completely detached, which Biddy seems to be claiming is a Mr., yet Pip is hesitant as to whether or not this title is something he wishes to have. This stems from the religions inside of the text. One being Christianity, the other being Hinduism- one which prays for you to cling, one which seeks for you to let go. Of course, this also stems from his psychological state, one which pushes him to let go as a result of a reaction to his past, and the other side of society which seeks to Christianize him. The final progression seems to be Pip’s refusal to fall under the constraints to either side of the sphere, rather he becomes his own combination of both. For example, he refuses to get married, which is an extension of the Christian wish to cling to things, and also refuses to let go of his family completely. He is neither Mr. Pip, nor his child form of Pip, but instead, a bachelor without the need to cling or let go.

Through the study of psychological development stages one begins to understand the purpose for the bildungsroman form, humans, just like characters, tend to follow a very distinct path as they continue on in this living form. These stages, while they may be interrupted (which tends to cause psychological disorders), are parts to our lives where we are able to view another's individual changes and adapt appropriately. For this reason, if for nothing else, this bildungsroman form becomes extremely persuasive, inticing, and rhetorically powerful. A reader is able to develop through these stages with their characters, fix any type of disorders they have previously developed, and learn for their future. Through which developmental stages does Pip replicate as he transforms throughout the novel? Also, what might one stand to learn from approaching a bildungsroman tale from a lens of psychological development? Furthermore, how might one gain insight into psychological frameworks by tracking and understanding Pip's charactorial transformation? Might the beginning of the text also be meant to show a reader which development stages may have caused psychological fixation in Pip? Each of these are further questions to explore in addition to my initial question.

To begin with a psychological analysis, Joe, who is supposed to serve as Pip’s psychological buffer, exhibits an disequilibrium regarding his sensorimotor and perioperational development. This disequilibrium leads to his social awkwardness and his inferiority complex, most noticeably with his meeting with Mrs. Havisham.

“It was quite in vain for me to endevour to make him sensible that he ought to speak to Miss Havisham. The more I made faces and gestures to him to do it, the more confidential, argumentative, and polite, he persisted in being to Me.” (Pg. 82).

Pip’s reaction to his buffer’s psychological fixation could go one of two ways. He could either follow along with Joe’s psychological disadvantage, or he could recognize them and improve his own through observation. Pip exhibits a complication with his abstract Neo-Piagetian stages, mostly as a result of Joe’s perioperational unbalance, but also due to his status as an orphan. Pip struggles with intimacy, identity, and isolationism. This is shown through Pip’s seeming addiction to an unrequited love- by name, Stella. As Pip reflects on this romance, he gains insight to his own psychological problems, he states

“From Estella she looked at me, with a searching glance that seemed to pry into my heart and probe its wounds […] I saw in this that Estella was set to wreak Miss Havisham’s revenge on me, and that she was not to be given to me until she had gratified it for a term.“ (Pg.228-229).

However, this realization appears to be a turning state, for after this, Pip initiates his first progression away from his abstract multiplication deficiency. His final step away from this is his final talk with marriage to Biddy, symbolically representing his growth into a healthy abstract stage, one which is intimate and nurturing, though mostly with respect to male-female relationships as friends. This is further exemplified with the final scene of the novel, with both Estella and Pip’s decision to remain “friends apart.” (Pg 358).

Furthermore, by presenting this charactorial transformation, clearly symbolized through names, the neo-Eriksonian social mutuality works its way, extending into the text. Following a similar structural path as identity transformations, there are also two ways to view Erikson’s stage. To illustrate these views, some may view his adoption of a new name as a psychological response to coping with abandonment issues, basically trying to flee his identity, birthright, caste, and socio-economic position- whereas some may analyze the adaptation as grateful, an adaptation both respectful and gracious of his lineage regardless of his detachment from the original name. The narrative technique of exemplifying his youthful (near infantness) struggle with his name foreshadows a cyclical repetition of said identity transformations. As a result, varying interpretations of his "graciousness" arise in a parallel manner. These perhaps exemplify "Dickens'" own troubles battling betwixt inner/outer identities- such as his attempts to rid critics of his personal life, and his own difficulties distinguishing his authorial voice from his personal one.

Dickens also utilizes Pip criticize and satirize institutionalization- mainly through the form of religious satire. As a result, this becomes a direct play on Pip’s neo-Eriksonian stage known as socio-affective stage, which plays into the substage known as both trust vs. mistrust, as well as sociability vs. unsociability. Essentially, the transition became Dickens criticizing religious institutions for slithering their way into the lives and business of, well, frankly, anything they found controllable. Partially, Dickens’ criticizes them for their greediness, such as their self-inflicted need to take over every individual's life, as well as their obliviousness to hypocrisy. One of the most heartfelt responses from Pip comes fairly early in the text, where he claims

"As I passed the church, I felt (as I had felt during service in the morning a sublime compassion for the poor creatures who were destined to go there, Sunday after Sunday, all their lives through, and to lie obscurely at last among the low green mounds. I promised myself that I would do something for them one of these days [...]" (Pg. 115).

One of the central ideas here being as a result of Pip’s experience with the institutionalized system, he develops a conflict in his socio-affective stage, which causes him to not only mistrust and dislike institutions, but also causes him to wish to aid those who find themselves trapped inside of them. Dickens, whose focus is institutions in general, here makes a subtle self-promise to aid those who do not wish to support such causes, the relatively obscure who meander somewhere week by week because it has become what is expected. Most do not attend because they wish to, nor because they enjoy, nor because it gives them a feeling of love and joy and graciousness, no, here Dickens shows there are those who would become better people outside of instutionalized religious hierarchies. Pip is gracious, joyful, and kind. However, head figures from institutions tend to criticize Pip for his lack of graciousness. One thing which must be clarified- Neither Pip nor Dickens has stated people should avoid church, nor religious institutions, however, that individuals should not allow themselves to be institution alone; they must retain independence. This exemplifies a transformation in Pip because he progresses over the institutionalized way of thinking, overcoming his struggles regarding his socio-affective stage, and is later able to communicate freely and openly.

Pip's sister, "Mrs. Joe Gargery," replicates this strive to branch away from socially determined statuses, which exemplifies a fixation in her Neo-Piagetian stage known as abstract hierarchization. She essentially raises Joe, her husband, as well as Pip, her brother, through force. In this sense, she attempts to retain a position of power by any means necessary, regardless of her explicit and wild physical force utilized against household males. This is perhaps socially abnormal, divergent from timely social expectations. Psychologically speaking, she does this as a result of her inability to cope with social mechanisms and hierarchy systems. She becomes a character who resorts to force in hopes of gaining, guiding, and separating from her social role. Instantaneously, this caste separation (or attempt, none-the-less), provide the reader with sympathy for Pip and Joe, while subsequentially undermining their "masculinity." Both figures resort to a type of "turn the other cheek" philosophy- a flee rather than fight system of neurological reactions. Mrs. Joe repeatedly draws forth a wishful longing to be separated from her status as a "blacksmiths wife." Her desire to escape from her socio-economic position, one she compares to a slave, exposes her lack of graciousness with what she has attained "'Perhaps if I weren't a blacksmith's wife, and (what's the same thing) a slave with her apron never off, I should have been to hear the Carols,' said Mrs. Joe." (Pg. 23). Here, a heavy critique of society’s treatment of females in her socio-economic class is proposed. She becomes a family slave, one forced to the confinement of her house to wait, clean, and cook for the males. She is paid with housing and food, a house-mom and a slave, a fairly bitter metaphor. Whether within reason or not, this critique widely transcends the generation in which the text was written, even dabbling into the modern day house wife. Mrs. Joe's fixation becomes extremely important because her psycholigal trauama influences Pip's psychological trauma. Essentially, Pip's future female relationships are guided as a result of his interaction with her, and her psychological fixation becomes something Pip is attracted to, without understanding why.

To carry forth with a further exploration of Erikson’s stages of socio-development, he initially lays them out in 8 stages. The fundamentals of this being, all individuals, universally, transgress throughout each of these stages as they grow as an individual. Each, due to their environment, parenting structure, and institutionalized influence, develop slightly differently during each stage. However, when an individual develops any kind of charactorial flaw, so to speak, it can be paralleled to one of the stages. The first stage, which is typically from infancy to birth, is where a child’s dependency and independence is developed. If a child develops a fixation during this period, they will later be distrustful. If they are healthy during this stage, they will be trusting and confident. Pip, I would argue, exemplifies one who from early on has dependency issues, but later becomes a trusting individual. The significance of this, of course, is Pip’s progression out of this stage which is developed from infancy. Two examples to prove this are Pip’s inability to trust in his lover, Estella, and his later marriage to Biddy. Relationships, because they are so central to an individual’s heart and soul, become an extremely powerful way to understand one’s psyche. So, let us carry on with this further with the hopes of understanding Pip’s psychological mindset.

The psychosocial stage six is typically viewed during early adulthood, when children begin exploring with relationships. This stage becomes vital to their development of commitment and trust, intimacy and isolation, depression and joy. Now, this stage is not necessarily when a character begins to find romances, but it could be when they begin to make friends with the inverse sex. Pip does not ever have any friends who are female, up until Biddy. And Biddy isn’t even necessarily his friend, but both his school teacher and his maid of sorts. This becomes exceptionally interesting psychologically because Biddy, being his first female connection, also becomes his first wife. Prior to his relationship with Biddy, Pip wishes to be with Estella. Estella being both unnurturing, distrustful, and lacking any type of positive emotions toward Pip. Yet, Pip wishes to stay with her, but for what reason? I would argue it comes as a result of his relationship with Mrs. Joe. Mrs. Joe, his sister, who is his earliest female relationship, is abusive, cold, and unfriendly. Estella, too, is abusive, cold, and unfriendly. Psychologically speaking these characters fit a perfectly logical system- Pip first interacts with his sister, which causes him to find his first romance, Estella. His second interaction is with Biddy, which causes him to marry Biddy, probably as a result of her being the only female figure who has ever given him any type of positive energy what-so-ever.

The seventh stage of psychosocial development comes during adulthood, mostly as a result of career decisions. During this stage, one’s feeling of worth, productivity, and social roles arise. Those who are not positively reinforced during this stage begin to doubt their contribution to society at large, as well as their own feeling of worth internally. Pip seems to be fairly strong during this stage, mostly due to his positive reinforcement of gaining money and making it into a socio-economic class which is above his birth level. Pip is able to communicate well with others, even those older than him; he’s able to contribute to society, for example, by his attempt to get his roommate a strong position in society, and also gets into a healthy relationship, which enables him to contribute to others.

It is worth noting what is stated by Gerald Young in his New Ideas in Psychology paper, particularly when viewing these psychological stages in terms of a bildungsroman. Young states that

“The stages are no magical transformations that suddenly bring more advanced thinking across all areas of cognition once they appear, nor are they divorced from environmental influences and constraints. Nevertheless, they are valid inferences from the pattern of observations and empirical studies of children’s thinking and thinking across the lifespan.” (Pg. 5).

This idea is fairly central to understanding the psyches of characters, and the role of psychological changes characters exhibit. Pip, for example, develops complications in several of the stages, but overcomes them throughout the progression of the text. However, it is not instant. It is not some transformation where Pip has problems on Pg. 222, then overcomes completely on Pg. 223. It is, rather, a smooth and on-going transformation of character growth. The bildungsroman is of course, a tale regarding a youth becoming an adult. And, through the process, overcoming several obstacles, both internally and externally, to land in a position of psychological comfort. A few ideas here must be rose. Firstly, what this type of text does to a reader is fairly vast and often overlooked. As a result of narration, the reader becomes intertwined with the psyche of the narrator. The reader not only progresses through the action of the tale with the narrator, but also through these psychological stages. In this respect, a text becomes a type of psychologist, both forcing readers to attain knowledge of these types of disorders, and also helping them through them. So, read carefully! Otherwise, you may find yourself a bad psychologist who develops psychological trauma rather than restores them. Of course, the power and significance of such depends invariably on how seriously a reader immerses themselves into the text. Perhaps in the future, doctors will prescribe books rather than pulls; it is, after-all, a healthier alternative. Furthermore, if prose does this, imagine the power of a poem.

Furthermore, books become types of portals in and out of psychological states, and although most jump back and forth, they do not necessarily realize this. Thus, if you read a book, for example, Great Expectations, in which the author and characters have psychological issues regarding social statuses, cross sexual interaction, trust issues, abuse issues, and abandonment issues, it is more than likely your own psyche gets reformed in those directions, however, through reflection, one is able to move beyond them. Furthermore, this fine line between genius and insanity, one which tampers back and forth between psychological playing fields, is what people develop an interest for. It is because those who are normal are able to temporarily cross their own boundaries, explore another’s, and momentarily find their own inner genius through interaction with another’s.

To conclude, and to take a step away from Dickens and his texts, this bildungsroman form becomes central to psychological development and improvement. A form of alternate medication. We go through psychological stages, and get caught up on problems as a result of stories that occur. When we read a text, we also go through those stories psychologically. And, as a result, we are able to gain the same advantages a character progresses through, and also may learn from what mistakes we, individually, read into the text. Pills remain because they continually numb the problem, and when people try to quit, their lives get more bleak than before because they have a chemical imbalance. As a result, people do not wish to eliminate them as a solution. The problem is they are forced. However, if we prescribe books, it could promote an alternative which is focused solely around aiding individuals to overcome those stages which gave them a form of complication. Furthermore, as quickly as humans begin to trust one another, we might even let them diagnose themselves. What an idea!

Only the great overcome expectations

Only the good become expectations

Only the best make humor of them.

Travis Johnson

Hackenberg

Learning from Aging Youth: Dickens and Bildungsromans

Throughout the trials and tribulations of life, individuals seek to find themselves; to find who they are, and to find who they are to become. This transformation, evolution, and development is central to the human condition- a development full of ambiguities, pressures, responsibilities, and plight. This growth and universal progression from one stage to the next is replicated heavily in the majority of literature, typically in the form known as bildungsroman. Through the study of this form, one realizes even the youth experience their own problems, they are merely relative to circumstances and age. Essentially, every stage to life has equal strife, turmoil, and stress, it simply revolves around various matters relating to an individuals circumstances. This is not to say there is no transformation between childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age, it is to say that one of the purposes of literature is to track these patterns with the hopes of learning from multiple perspectives, and finding ways human beings are able to relate to one another, both young to old and vice versa. This is the human condition- to learn from another through complete emotions of empathy, joy, celebration, and hope, regardless of age. How does Charles Dickens utilize this form of the novel known as a bildungsromans tale, and through what modes does the protagonist transform? Throughout the bildungsroman tale Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, Pip undergoes several charactorial transformations both from innate desires and social expectations.

Great Expectations begins with, as might be expected, names. Pip innitiates the text by giving the reader background regarding the historical background of his family name, and how he came to adjust his name to formfit his own characteristics. Initially, the reader is introduced with the concept that names will become central to a characters identity, both explicitly and implicitly. Pip explains his name is a hybrid combination stemming from his familial history and his own creative brevity, "My father's name being Pirrrip, and my christian name Philip, my infant tongue could make of both names nothing longer or more explicit than Pip. So, I called myself Pip, and came to be called Pip." (Pg. 9). By beginning the text this way, in a broad sense, Dickens begins to emphasize the idea that his tales are about a child, a child who grows into his own self, who creates his own image, who becomes his own man. Obviously, Pip's tale begins with Pip as a young child, so young, in fact, he is incapable of pronouncing a name which was forced onto him. This foreshadows two things, firstly, that Pip will have something else forced onto him, that he will be expected to be someone, to recieve a title which is not innately his own, and that he will formfit such expectations to suit his own nefarious purposes. Secondly, Dickens foreshadows the fact that at some point in the tale there shall be a clash of inner and outer identities, an explicit and implicit understanding of Self. This proves to be an extremely powerful way to begin a novel, first, through an infant, exemplifying this bildungsroman will take on its most classical form, from infancy to adulthood, and secondly, by showing the protagonist struggling with something every individual is capable of relating to- titles. The brevaciousness of Pip's name suggests he shall have a talent for taking large ideas which intertwine to several areas (EG his name's relation to his father and Christian nomenclature), and collapsing them into something minute and powerful. The text introduces the reader to several formalaic techniques, as well as this theme of charactorial change and adjustments.

Furthermore, Pip finds himself an adoptee, a conscientious authorial decision adding to Pip's earliest plights and causing readerly empathy. Not only is this a bildungsroman tale of a youthful figure growing into adulthood, but it's one where the character must overcome rarities an average person might fail to otherwise relate to. Pip is taken away from his family name, his father, his mother, and raised by a man named Joe, a name which symbolizes his averageness- a figurehead for the average Joe. Nearly from birth, Pip begins his earliest charactorial transformations- both from his names as well as his status as an orphan. He begins as Philip, with parents connected to even his name, and transforms to an oprhan named Pip, a name with only the rememberance of his family. Both of these elements combine to introduce the reader to this powerful form of a bildungsroman, two elements people are able to relate to, if nothing else. Technically, Pip's orphanhood and brevacious namesake is extremely rich with detail, both foreshadowing future changes, as well as hinting toward changes from his past. This further exemplifies the bildungsroman's essence of continual transformative change.

Through the study of psychological development stages one begins to understand the purpose for the bildungsroman form, humans, just like characters, tend to follow a very distinct path as they continue on in this living form. These stages, while they may be interrupted (which tends to cause psychological disorders), are parts to our lives where we are able to view another's individual changes and adapt appropriately. For this reason, if for nothing else, this bildungsroman form becomes extremely persuasive, inticing, and rhetorically powerful. A reader is able to develop through these stages with their characters, fix any type of disorders they have previously developed, and learn for their future.

 Travis Johnson

Gracious Social Expectations

Throughout the trials and tribulations of life, individuals seek to find themselves; to find who they are, and to find who they are to become. This transformation is one of the most difficult developments of the human condition- a development of ambiguity, pressures, responsibilities, and plight. This growth and universal progression from one stage to the next is replicated heavily in the majority of literature, typically in the form known as a bildungsroman. That is to say, characters who transform into citizens of age and experience. Obviously, there are stages to this transformation. Through the study of literature, it becomes apparent to us that even the youth experience their own problems, they are merely relative to circumstances and often times, age. Essentially, every stage to life has equal strife, termoil, and stress, it simply revolves around various matters relative to an individuals circumstances. This is not to say there is no transformation between childhood, middle age, adulthood, and old age, it is to say that one of the purposes of literature is to track these patterns with the hopes of learning from multiple perspectives, and finding ways human beings are able to relate to one another, both the young to the old, and vice versa. This is the human condition- to learn from another through complete emotions of empathy, joy, celebration, and hope regardless of age. Throughout the novel Great Expectations Charles Dickens utilizes several devices, such as foreshadowing, identity, juxtaposition, and institutional satire to develop the themes of love, graciousness, abandonment, and hope.

 Great Expectations begins with a character striving to find his name- a universal symbol representing identity. He shrinks his name from Phillip to Pip, allegedly depicting his transformation away from his original identity, his original birthright. Secondly, this replicates Great Expectations' central theme: a character, and individual development-a transformation form fitting implicit and explicit identities. There is his name "Phillip," a name he was born into, a name society has "given" to him, and than there is his newly crafted identity, "Pip." By begginning the novel with a focus around these two names, differently the same, a central premise to the novel is depicted- an identity which is expected, an identity which is presented. His step away from his full name Phillip into his new name Pip underlines and develops this theme of abandonment, both from his own namesake, and his parents' abandonment of him. Essentially, one abandons the other, so the other allows this abandonment to massage its way into one's identity.

Furthermore, by presenting this charactorial transformation, clearly symbolized through names, a further motif of "graciousness" works its way, extending into the text. Following a similar structoral path as identity transformations, there are also two ways to view graciousness. To illustrate these views, some may view his adoption of a new name as a psychological response to coping with abandonment issues, basically trying to flee his identity, birthright, caste, and socio-economic position- whereas some may analyze the adaptation as grateful, an adaptation both respectful and gracious of his lineage regardless of his detachment from the original name. The narrative technique of exemplifying his youthful (near infantness) struggle with his name foreshadows a cyclical repetition of said identity transformations. As a result, varying interperations of his "graciousness" arise in a parallel manner. These perhaps exemplify "Dickens'" own troubles battling betwixt inner/outer identities- such as his attempts to rid critics of his personal life, and his own difficulties distinguishing his authorial voice from his personal one.

To expand this theme further, graciousness is utilized in the text to criticize and satirize institutionalization- mainly through the form of religious satire. Essentially, the transition became Dickens criticizing religious institutions for slithering their way into the lives and business of, well, frankly, anything they found controllable. Partially, Dicken's criticizes them for their greedyness, such as their self inflicted need to take over every individual's life, as well as their obliviousness to hypocracy. One of the most heartfelt responses from Pip comes fairly early in the text, where he claims

"As I passed the church, I felt (as I had felt during service in the morning a sublime compassion for the poor creatures who were destined to go there, Sunday after Sunday, all their lives through, and to lie obscurely at last among the low green mounds. I promised myself that I would do something for them one of these days[...]" (Pg. 115).

One of the central ideas here being the repetitious behaviors of humans regarding institutions, their inability to change, and the almost tragic air hovering above them. Here, while the institution is not necessarily the target of heavy satire, the individuals who support them are. Dickens, whose focus is institutions in general, here makes a subtle self promise to aid those who do not wish to support such causes, the relatively obscure who meander somewhere week by week because it has become what is expected. Here, the religious institutes appear to turn their followers into monotonous zombies who return week after week because they are told if they do not, eternal suffering and damnation may be cast upon them (as if rebirth wasn't hell, already). Most do not attend because they wish to, nor because they enjoy, nor because it gives them a feeling of love and joy and graciousness, no, here Dickens shows there are those who would become better people outside of instutionalized religious hierarchies. Pip is gracious, joyful, and kind. However, head figures from instutions tend to criticize Pip for his lack of graciousness. One thing which must be clarified- Neither Pip nor Dickens has stated people should avoid church, nor religious institutions, however, that individuals should not allow themselves to be institution alone; they must retain independence.

Pip's sister, "Mrs. Joe Gargery," replicates this strive to branch away from socially determined statuses. She essentially raises Joe, her husband, as well as Pip, her brother, through force. In this sense, she attempts to retain a position of power , regardless of her explicit and wild physical force utilized against household males. This is perhaps socially abnormal, divergent from timely social expectations. She becomes a character who resorts to force in hopes of gaining, guiding, and separating from her social role. Instantaneously, this caste separation (or attempt, none-the-less), provide the reader with sympathy for Pip and Joe, while subsequentially undermining their "masculinity." Both figures resort to a type of "turn the other cheek" philosophy- a flee rather than fight system of neorological reactions. Through this juxtaposition of charactorial traits, two separate techniques of graciousness are paralleled. One, where force gains power developing graciousness. Another, a fleeting attempt to avoid ungraciousness.

Mrs. Joe repeatedly draws forth a wishful longing to be separated from her status as a "blacksmiths wife." Her desire to escape from her socio-economic position, one she compares to a slave, exposes her lack of graciousness with what she has attained "'Perhaps if I weren't a blacksmith's wife, and (what's the same thing) a slave with her apron never off, I should have been to hear the Carols,' said Mrs. Joe." (Pg. 23). Here, a heavy critique of societies treatment of females in her socio-economic class is proposed. She becomes a family slave, one forced to the confinement of her house to wait, clean, and cook for the males. She is paid with housing and food, a housemom and a slave- a fairly bitter metaphor. Whether within reason or not, this critique widely transcends the generation in which the text was written, even dabbling into the modern day house wife. While within reason, Mrs. Joe remains one of the least gracious characters. Or, to say the least, her graciousness is expressed more ambiguous than expected.

The narrative battles between outward and inward presentations- social and private appearances and presentations. The importance of this is how social expectations are filled, replicated, and brought to the forefront. For example, at Christmas dinner several guests repeatedly claim Pip (who serves to represent his "generation" as a whole) is largely ungrateful. Making a vast sweeping generalization, Mrs. Hubble inquires "Why is it that the young are never grateful?" (Pg. 26). This question, regardless of its philosophical ignorance, opens the text to a series of avenues; such as, to what extent would youthful figures embellish and replicate such expectations? Here, Dickens makes use of foreshadowing. Showing that expectations, great as they are, will probably be replicated and reciprocated onto another. However, is not Mrs. Hubbles lack of graciousness toward the youth ungracious? Thus graciousness, or a character's ambiguous lack of graciousness, develops thematic power throughout the course of the narrative.

 Travis Johnson

Gracious Social Expectations

Throughout the trials and tribulations of life, individuals seek to find themselves; to find who they are, and to find who they are to become. It becomes one of the most difficult transitions in life- from a child into the adulthood of ambiguity, pressures, responsibilities, and plight. However, it becomes apparent to us that even the youth experience their own problems, they are merely relative to circumstances and often times, age. This growth and universal progression from one stage to the next is replicated heavily in the majority of literature. That is to say, characters who transform into citizens of age and experience. Obviously, there are stages to this transformation. Some being more complicated in certain plots than others and some accepted more from one character than the next, however, these transitions become central to our existence as humans because we learn from mistakes and thrive through success. This is the human condition- to learn from another through complete emotions of empathy, joy, celebration, and hope. Also, to gain insight back and forth through both foreshadowing and retrospect. What about the individual who becomes uncertain of his name, his class, his implicit and explicit identities? Could a character ever be alone? Could a character ever be better than together? Throughout the novel Great Expectations Charles Dickens utilizes several devices, such as foreshadowing, identity, juxtaposition, and institutional satire to develop the themes of love, graciousness, abandonment, and hope.

 Great Expectations begins with a character striving to find his name- a universal symbol representing identity. He shrinks his name from Phillip to Pip, allegedly depicting his transformation away from his original identity, his original birthright. Secondly, this replicates Great Expectations' central theme: a character, and individual development-a transformation form fitting implicit and explicit identities. There is his name "Phillip," a name he was born into, a name society has "given" to him, and than there is his newly crafted identity, "Pip." By begginning the novel with a focus around these two names, differently the same, a central premise to the novel is depicted- an identity which is expected, an identity which is presented. His step away from his full name Phillip into his new name Pip underlines and develops this theme of abandonment, both from his own namesake, and his parents' abandonment of him. Essentially, one abandons the other, so the other allows this abandonment to massage its way into one's identity.

Furthermore, by presenting this charactorial transformation, clearly symbolized through names, a further motif of "graciousness" works its way, extending into the text. Following a similar structoral path as identity transformations, there are also two ways to view graciousness. To illustrate these views, some may view his adoption of a new name as a psychological response to coping with abandonment issues, basically trying to flee his identity, birthright, caste, and socio-economic position- whereas some may analyze the adaptation as grateful, an adaptation both respectful and gracious of his lineage regardless of his detachment from the original name. The narrative technique of exemplifying his youthful (near infantness) struggle with his name foreshadows a cyclical repetition of said identity transformations. As a result, varying interperations of his "graciousness" arise in a parallel manner. These perhaps exemplify "Dickens'" own troubles battling betwixt inner/outer identities- such as his attempts to rid critics of his personal life, and his own difficulties distinguishing his authorial voice from his personal one.

To expand this theme further, graciousness is utilized in the text to criticize and satirize institutionalization- mainly through the form of religious satire. Essentially, the transition became Dickens criticizing religious institutions for slithering their way into the lives and business of, well, frankly, anything they found controllable. Partially, Dicken's criticizes them for their greedyness, such as their self inflicted need to take over every individual's life, as well as their obliviousness to hypocracy. One of the most heartfelt responses from Pip comes fairly early in the text, where he claims

"As I passed the church, I felt (as I had felt during service in the morning a sublime compassion for the poor creatures who were destined to go there, Sunday after Sunday, all their lives through, and to lie obscurely at last among the low green mounds. I promised myself that I would do something for them one of these days[...]" (Pg. 115).

One of the central ideas here being the repetitious behaviors of humans regarding institutions, their inability to change, and the almost tragic air hovering above them. Here, while the institution is not necessarily the target of heavy satire, the individuals who support them are. Dickens, whose focus is institutions in general, here makes a subtle self promise to aid those who do not wish to support such causes, the relatively obscure who meander somewhere week by week because it has become what is expected. Here, the religious institutes appear to turn their followers who return week after week because they are told if they do not, eternal suffering and damnation may be cast upon them (as if rebirth wasn't hell, already). Most do not attend because they wish to, nor because they enjoy, nor because it gives them a feeling of love and joy and graciousness, no, here Dickens shows there are those who would become better people outside of instutionalized religious hierarchies. Pip is gracious, joyful, and kind. However, head figures from instutions tend to criticize Pip for his lack of graciousness. However, Dickens twists the reader's perspective enhanced with a form of Pip's universal love, where he only wishes to help those who require help, and graciously looks forward to the day he may. One thing which must be clarified- Neither Pip nor Dickens has stated people should avoid church, nor religious institutions, however, that individuals should not allow themselves to be institution alone; they must retain independence.

Pip's sister, "Mrs. Joe Gargery," replicates this strive to branch away from socially determined statuses. She essentially raises Joe, her husband, as well as Pip, her brother, through force. In this sense, she attempts to retain a position of power , regardless of her explicit and wild physical force utilized against household males. This is perhaps socially abnormal, divergent from timely social expectations. She becomes a character who resorts to force in hopes of gaining, guiding, and separating from her social role. Instantaneously, this caste separation (or attempt, none-the-less), provide the reader with sympathy for Pip and Joe, while subsequentially undermining their "masculinity." Both figures resort to a type of "turn the other cheek" philosophy- a flee rather than fight system of neorological reactions. Through this juxtaposition of charactorial traits, two separate techniques of graciousness are paralleled. One, where force gains power developing graciousness. Another, a fleeting attempt to avoid ungraciousness.

Mrs. Joe repeatedly draws forth a wishful longing to be separated from her status as a "blacksmiths wife." Her desire to escape from her socio-economic position, one she compares to a slave, exposes her lack of graciousness with what she had attained "'Perhaps if I weren't a blacksmith's wife, and (what's the same thing) a slave with her apron never off, I should have been to hear the Carols,' said Mrs. Joe." (Pg. 23). Through this exposure, a heavy critique of societies treatment of females in her socio-economic class is proposed. She becomes a family slave, one forced to the confinement of her house to wait, clean, and cook for the males. She is paid with housing and food, a housemom and a slave- a fairly bitter metaphor. Whether within reason or not, this critique widely transcends the generation in which the text was written, even dabbling into the modern day house wife. Whether apparent or not, Mrs. Joe remains one of the least gracious characters. Or, to say the least, her graciousness is expressed more ambiguous than expected.

The narrative battles between outward and inward presentations- social and private appearances and presentations. The importance of this is how social expectations are filled, replicated, and brought to the forefront. For example, at Christmas dinner several guests repeatedly claim Pip (who serves to represent his "generation" as a whole) is largely ungrateful. Making a vast sweeping generalization, Mrs. Hubble inquires "Why is it that the young are never grateful?" (Pg. 26). This question, regardless of its philosophical ignorance, opens the text to a series of avenues; such as, to what extent would youthful figures embellish and replicate such expectations? Here, Dickens makes use of foreshadowing. Showing that expectations, great as they are, will probably be replicated and reciprocated onto another. However, is not Mrs. Hubbles lack of graciousness for the youth ungracious? Graciousness, or a character's ambiguous lack of graciousness, develops thematic power throughout the course of the narrative.