Männen som maktinnehavare i Medea av Euripides och Ett dockhem av Henrik Ibsen

De båda verken Medea och Ett Dockhem publicerades under tidsperioder då jämlikheten mellan man och kvinna inte var den självklarhet den på många sätt är i vår tid. Båda verken väckte debatt på sin tid då de porträtterar kvinnor som på olika sätt frånsäger sig det beroende av mannen som samhället och de, till viss del, själva skapat. Medea, av Euripides, är en av de äldsta epikerna som återfunnits och tar upp tidlösa motiv såsom äktenskap, skilsmässa, svartsjuka och maktbalans. Ett Dockhem, skrivet av Henrik Ibsen, handlar på samma sätt om äktenskap och kvinnans begränsade roll i familjens affärer. Gemensamt i båda verken är att männen är i maktposition och är de enda som har rätt att göra de avgörande besluten för sina familjer. Gemensamt är också att kvinnorna i dramerna förbiser detta och tar själva beslut som dramatiskt ändrar familjens förutsättningar. Kvinnornas perspektiv har dock redan varit objekt för åtskilliga analyser och reflektioner. En intressantare och mer outforskad aspekt är därför männens roll och mer specifikt männens makt och hur den i de båda verken går igenom en drastisk förändring i takt med att de kvinnliga protagonisternas fattar beslut som överskrider de normer som vanligtvis begränsar deras befogenheter.

Jason och Helmer innehar båda, i egenskap av män levande på 400-talet f.Kr respektive 1800-talet, positionen som försörjare i sina familjer och har därmed ett maktövertag i relationen med deras respektive fruar, Medea och Nora. Denna maktbalans etableras tidigt i Ett Dockhem då Helmer efter en diskussion bestämmer sig för att ge Nora pengar att spendera: ”HELMER: Se där! (Räcker henne några sedlar.) Herregud, jag vet väl, att det behövs en hel del i ett hem, när det är jul. NORA (räknar): Tio — tjugo — trettio – fyrtio. Å, tack, Torvald, tack! Nu reder jag mig långt.” (Ibsen, s.9-10) Faktumet att Nora tackar för pengarna indikerar att hon själv inte har något inflytande i deras gemensamma ekonomi utan hålls innanför de gränser Torvald sätter för henne. Likaså erbjuder sig Jason att hjälpa Medea ekonomiskt då hon blir förvisad från Korint; ”Jag är mån om dig och barnen och ville gärna ordna så för er att ni ej någonsin stå utan medel.” (Euripides, s.111). Jason har den dåvarande patriarkala kulturen att tacka för den makt han besitter i sitt äktenskap. Medea beskriver mannen i ett äktenskap som ”en tyrann med envåldsmakt över vår kropp” (Euripides, s.101). Den makt som Jason innehar låter honom lämna sin fru utan att hans omgivning dömer honom, något som inte skulle vara fallet för kvinnan; ”Skilsmässan gagnar ej en kvinnas rykte, / hon har ej rätt att gå ifrån sin man” (Euripides, s.101). Medeas maktposition försvagas också av faktumet att hon befinner sig i ett främmande land, utan möjlighet att återvända till sitt hemland. Den manliga överlägsenheten i äktenskapet är en förutsättning för det myteri protagonisterna begår.

Männen i de båda dramerna tar sitt övertag för givet och underskattar förmågan hos sina respektive makar. Efter att Medea och Jason mötts i en ordduell där de båda förbannat varandra återvänder Jason till Medea. Hon använder sin retorik till att övertyga Jason att själv överlämna den förgiftade kransen. ”Jason! Förlåt mig vad jag yttrat förr! […] Jag ger mig, det var jag som hade fel; men jag har kommit nu på bättre tankar. Kom, barn där inne, kära barn, kom ut och hälsa riktigt vackert på er far!” (Euripides, s.132-133). Medeas använder här sin roll som mamma och beskyddare över barnen för att uppnå sitt syfte; att få Jasons tillfälliga förlåtelse. Genom att erkänna att hon själv gjort misstaget manipulerar hon Jason till att känna sig i kontroll. Jason beskrivs själv som en skicklig retoriker: ”Med talförmågan skyler han sitt brott, […] hans vishet bor på tungan, är blott sken” (Euripides, s.115), men Medea har, i och med att hon kan använda barnen för sina ändamål, ett övertag. Ett övertag som Jason underskattar, vilket leder till hans gemåls och hans blivande svärfars död. I Ibsens Ett Dockhem blir den manliga hybrisen tydlig när vi får lära att Nora räddade livet på sin man genom att låna pengar till hans behandling: ”Torvald med sin manliga självkänsla — hur pinsamt och förödmjukande skulle det inte vara för honom att veta, att han hade mig att tacka för något. Det skulle alldeles förvränga vårt förhållande” (Ibsen, s.23). Detta citat visar tydligt hur oberättigad Helmers överlägsenhet över sin fru är och hur han underskattat hennes förmågor. Nora gör till en början ingenting för att få sin man att ändra uppfattning om hennes kapaciteter som människa, tvärtom så säger hon vid ett tillfälle ”Ja, Torvald, jag kan inte komma någon vart utan din hjälp” (Ibsen, s.44). Genom att förstärka illusionen av makt hos sin make, hoppas Nora fortsätta hålla Helmer i okunskap om hennes hemlighet. Även om Helmer vid enstaka tillfällen ger indikationer på att han har misstankar om Noras förehavanden eller på andra sätt hotar att avslöja Noras hemlighet, så lyckas hon alltid att distrahera honom med sina trick och konster, som till exempel när Helmer är på väg att öppna det brevet från Krogstad, innehållande Noras hemlighet:

”Nora: Vad ska du göra där ute?

Helmer: Bara se efter, om det kommit några brev.

Nora: Nej, nej, gör inte det, Torvald!

Helmer: Varför inte det?

Nora: Torvald, jag ber dig! Det finns inga.

Helmer: Jag kan väl få se efter.

(Ämnar gå.)

Nora (vid pianot, slår an på de första tonerna av tarantellan).

Helmer (stannar vid dörren): Aha!

Nora: Jag kan inte dansa i morgon, om jag inte får repetera med dig. […] Å, sätt dig och spela för mig, Torvald, snälla du, rätta mig och instruera mig, som du brukar.

Helmer: Gärna, mycket gärna, om du vill.” (Ibsen, s.73)

Även i det här exemplet är det tydligt att Helmer låter sig manipuleras av den falska känsla av makt han åtnjuter till följd av Noras spelade hjälplöshet. Helmer är, liksom Jason, mottagbar för smicker och faktumet att de båda blir manipulerade genom att de sätts på en pedistal av sina fruar tyder på en självupptagenhet som förblindar deras förmåga att resonera och se de sanna motiven bakom protagonisternas handlingar.

Jason och Helmer lämnas båda ensamma i slutet av de Medea och Ett Dockhem. Eftersom ett centralt motiv i de båda verken är den kvinnliga frigörelsen, så är en separation med mannen nödvändig för att protagonisterna ska kunna ta, eller återta, den kompletta makten över sina liv från sina mäns händer. ”ju större ett hus, desto större dess fall, om ödet vill slå det i spillror” (Euripides, s.96) säger Medea, och denna liknelse kan mycket väl appliceras på Jason och hans makt, som efter att Medea ber honom om förlåtelse, är större än någonsin, åtminstone i hans egna ögon. Som en påföljd, förlorar han också allt han håller kärt, inte minst närheten till den ännu större källa till makt han är nära att ansluta sig med, nämligen den kungliga familjen. Helmer har också börjat en klättring upp i den sociala näringskedjan och ska strax efter tiden dramat tar plats under, börja arbeta som bankdirektör. De båda männens nederlag i maktkampen sker alltså vid ett tillfälle då de båda har uppnått höjdpunkten av auktoritet, även om auktoriteten de utövar i äktenskapet bara är lite mer än en illusion. Fastän de båda fått indikationer på att maktbalansen i deras förhållanden är på väg att ändras permanent så kommer förändringen hastigt och de båda lämnas förkrossade, Jason över saknaden av sina barn och hatet mot Medea (eller ”tigrinnan” som han kallar henne) och Helmer över Noras första ärliga och sanna ord om deras relation. Jason och Helmer har till sist förlorat könskampen och finner sig själva maktlösa i den relation de inte längre har.

Från att, med samhällets uppbackning, varit autokrater i sina äktenskap så genomgår Jason och Helmer, i de båda verken Medea och Ett dockhem, en stor förändring i sina respektive maktpositioner. De båda har sin självupptagenhet och sin likgiltiga inställning till kvinnornas behov och vilja att skylla för sitt öde. Genom att inte bejaka deras respektives åsikter så tvingas Medea och Nora in i situationer där de tvingas använda sin manipulationsförmåga för att få sin vilja fram. Männens hunger efter bekräftelse och maktkänsla som lett dem till de samhällsställningar de är på väg att åtnjuta, är ironiskt nog anledningen till deras fall.

Källor:

Euripides, ”Medea”,”Alla tiders klassiker”, Bokförlaget Natur och Kultur, Södertälje 2002. ISBN: 91-1-921372-7

Ibsen, H, ”Ett dockhem”. Ur: ”Tio dramer av Henrik Ibsen. Tredje bandet, P.A. Norstedt & Söner, Stockholm 1935

Metternich var en sympatisk man AV OLA

How successful was Metternich in dealing with the principal problems of

the Austrian Empire in the period 1815-48?

Introduction

Europe had been, through the course of the Napoleonic wars, reshaped and gone through dramatic changes in many aspects. France, a state which had gone through a revolution fueled by a strong sense of nationalism and liberalism had been successful in conquering a significant part of Europe. The traditional and conservative kingdoms and empires of Europe were--and had reason to be--afraid of the upcoming ideas of the freedom of the individual and united nationalities. It did not fit well with their system of ruling, which often endeavored the governing of several nationalities and minorities in a number of regions. That was certainly the case in 'The Empire of the House of Austria', where a sovereign, namely Emperor Francis I, controlled an empire that consisted of a wide range of regions with an even wider range of ethnicities. Emperor Francis' greatest companion in the task of keeping his empire intact was Prince Clemens Wenzel von Metternich, Foreign Minister of the Austrian empire, and later its State Chancellor.

The question about to be answered is 'How successful was Metternich in dealing with the principal problems of the Austrian Empire in the period 1815-48?'. The question has a few variables and can be looked at from many perspectives. Because the definition of the 'principal problems' facing the empire ought to have been different amongst the habitants, and because not even Metternich and his superior shared the same opinions on the matter (even though they were in no way antagonists on what the problems facing them were, they did not have the same approach to how to handle them) the viewpoint one should take when attempting to identify the 'principal problems' is debatable. The liberals and nationalists would probably have defined the 'principal problems' as the lack of a constitution and the government's blindness to the aspiring national unity. The working class would probably consider the 'principal problems' being the lack of housing due to the increasing urbanization following the industrialization, and the insignificant working conditions. However, since the focus in the question lies on Metternich, who without a doubt was one of the most influential and powerful men in Europe at this time, and since he was the one with the most decisive power over the empire, save for the change-despising emperor, it is from his point of view and with regards to the 'principal problems' of his definition that this essay will put its focus.

Metternich's problems consisted of trying to restrain the erupting forces of nationalism, liberalism and democracy that had already exploded in France and brought disruption and unwanted chaos into Europe and now, in a similar manner, threatened to tear apart his empire. Only the diminishing respect and loyalty to the Hapsburgian throne glued the different ethnic groups together. To counter the rising popularity of nationalism, he used the principle of divide and rule to keep his people in check. He responded to the rising demand for change and democratization with control the people to the extent that historians has referred to the Austrian empire under his rule as a 'police state'. His refusal to embrace the new liberal ideas and use them to his advantage was perhaps a result of the Emperor's reluctance to act and allow for reforms and was probably an important factor in his inability to further control the fate of Austria.

Body

Up until that moment in time, the natural way of governing had been with one autonomous leader in control of one or several regions. No consideration was taken to things such as language and cultural background of a group of people when the borders were divided between the rulers, but the possession of a territory was rather defined by whom was married to whom and who had the military control of the area. Thus it is not hard to understand how alien and threatening the ideas of nationality and democratic rule were to the Kings and Emperors throughout Europe. After all, the last country that showed any tendency towards these concepts was France where the rulers had been decapitated following the revolution. When voices such as that of Count Istvan Szechnyi of Hungary, calling for unification by promoting the Magyar language culture, were raised, Metternich's diagnose was that the infectious Nationalism had begun to spread in the Austrian empire. He had to come up with a treatment. His answer was to let the different strains of Nationalism grow in a controlled manner by allowing and even encouraging the increased interest in local languages, literature and history. Metternich thought that this would satisfy the nationalistic needs of the liberals and at the same time, he could use the renewed hate towards other ethnic groups that came with the nationality, in order to play the different peoples against each other whenever he saw fit. According to Professor Amy Chua, all the powerful empires throughout history "rose to global dominance through tolerance"[1] . Though the tolerance by her definition is not the modern version comprising "human rights [...] equality, or even respect"(1) but rather tolerating their existence on their terms and let them "live, participate, prosper and rise in your society, regardless of ethnicity race and nationality--even if it's just for instrumental reasons"(1). To some extent, Metternich identified this and could use this to his advantage. By letting some manifestations of nationalism be, he thought himself able to satisfy the needs of his population, while still remaining on top of the empire. Ofcourse, there was still a need of common factors that which could bind the different nationalities together. Believing that increased saying in the affairs of the empire might encourage renewed loyalty towards the empire, Metternich put forward ideas to increase the involvement of the different nationalities in governmental affairs. None of these did however function properly and Emperor Francis was suspicious towards any form of change. The nationalistic 'disease' that was to a considerable extent enabled by Metternich's own actions, that he himself had helped feeding, with the motive of dividing and rule, eventually became out of control and manifested itself in the 1849 revolution sending him into exile.

To Metternich, liberalism was synonymous with chaos and anarchy. In line with the common perception from the 18th century enlightenment, he thought that life was to a great extent controlled by a number of natural laws--not only those which controlled the physical world and our perception of it, but also the interactions and changes of society and mankind. He believed that it followed a natural cycle and that the balance between chaos and stability was natural. In his view, the liberal ideas was nothing more then the chaos of anarchy that threatened the stability of his society and he saw in himself the person who was to stop the trouble from taking a hold of the empire. Just as he argued in the Vienna congress that a powerful Austria was the key to a balance of power in Europe, so did he see conservatism and authority as the answer to the increasing disorder. With a strong emphasis on authority, he set out to create a system of oppression that had no equivalent in Europe at that time. It included the establishment of a network of informers, surveillance of individuals and monitoring of letter correspondence. With the industrialization at its rise, communications were getting better, but there were still obstacles in getting your voice heard and the liberal ideas were most widespread in the middleclass, which was not a very big part of the population. In order to get a real movement going, the liberals needed to spread their ideas and thoughts to the working classes. In this regard, Metternich's methods were sucessful in slowing spreading the 'anarchy' and 'disorder', greatly helped by "the Carlsbad Decrees" which followed the assassination of August von Kotzebue, that forbid any texts under 320 pages. By controlling the allready quite limited flow of information, Metternich made the way towards revolution a hard struggle and pushed many liberals underground. However, if we look at a more recent example of a government controlled state, the USSR, data from a US government funded study from 1979 showed that "alternative press reached 45% of high-level professionals, 41% of political leaders, 27% of managers, and 14% of blue-collar workers."[2] It is, of course hard to compare the two states, but this study can give us a hint that the public continued to receive information that they were not supposed to, despite Metternich's best attempts.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Metternich did fail in his attempts to revitalize the Austrian empire without having to embrace the, in his view chaos, that would follow liberalism. While it is true that he accomplished more then most prominent men in power during his years of rule, he did it at the cost of many of the already few liberties that his people had. His attempts to combat nationalism with nationalism could have been more successful, had it not been for the fact that when he gave the people an inch, they wanted a mile. This could have been prevented if they could have, through the use of a central system like the ones attempted by Metternich, apply some of that nationalism back at the empire. It is very hard to prevent an idea, once it gets a foothold, and liberalism was on the rise throughout Europe. Metternich's police state may have had a certain success, but it is hard to enforce a law that criminalizes widespread ideas and beliefs. Metternich's ultimate failure lie in his failure identify the possibilities of the 'chaos' that was liberalism and to adapt to the new circumstances instead of dismissing the ideas as presumptuous.

---

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QenLlFx4cCQ

Conversations With History - Amy Chua // November 15, 2007 - University of california, berkeley

[2] The Propaganda System

Noam Chomsky

Lies of Our Times, May 1992

Letter from Lexington April 6, 1992

Assessment of Metternich

How successful was Metternich in dealing with the principal problems of the Austrian Empire in the period 1815-48?

The first thing which needs to be considered in answering this question is the time period as it plays a vital role. During 1812, Napoleon was defeated after two decades of war, and in 1814, France had been completely defeated as the victorious leaders marched through the streets of Paris. After the French defeat, the main objectives of the leaders who were to decide the faith of Europe were to keep peace and order, and to restore rightful leaders to their throne. In their eyes, the main enemy of these aims was the new ideology of liberalism and nationalism. Metternich was one of these foreign statesmen, representing the Austrian Empire.
When discussing the principal problems of the Austrian Empire, it is important to define what they actually are. To liberalists, nationalists and revolutionaries of the time the actual Austrian Empire was the main problem. They did not want to live centralize to a single huge empire, when they believed that they could do better themselves as a nation on their own. Although these were the views of a new ideology, Metternich and other conservatives saw the opposite. If “nations” or states were to become independent then only chaos would arise from this, instead they sought to bring back order, so that wars like the one of Napoleon would not arise again. They saw it as only natural that people would always be drawn towards disorder and chaos, and it was their job to once again in history restore order.
So, the “principal problems” are actually the forces, which according to conservatives, would bring the downfall of the Austrian Empire, thus the revolutions and demonstrations demanding nationalism and liberalism.
Metternich was deeply involved in trying to repress these ideologies, even though he had limited power due to the emperor, his policies made a great impact on how the peoples of the Austrian Empire would regard themselves and others. To some extent Metternich was also able to repress the revolutions for some time, but in the end his policies turned out fatal to the Austrian Empire.

One example of a successful repression of a revolution is Metternich’s anti-revolutionary crusade in Germany starting 1819, when a student killed a journalist with a political motivation. This was Metternich’s chance to strike down:

“All my efforts are directed towards giving the affairs the best possible sequel and to taking as much advantage of it as possible. I shall act vigorously to this end”, Metternich, 9 April 1819 (P. 49 The Great Powers)

Here Metternich was able to bring the revolutionaries to a decline, and so we can say that he was somewhat successful at times to bring down revolutions through means of repression and force.

However, the opposite can also be argued. That Metternich, by being so forceful and repressive, gave more incentives to nationalistic ideologies. One example is in Hungary, where nationalism was growing. As Metternich opposed all of the Hungarian’s proposals of more independence, Lajos Kossuth became a more and more popular figure. He proposed nationalism and dreamed of Hungary as an independent state, completely separate from the Austrian Empire and was also a very popular figure during the 1848 revolutions. So Metternich’s policies also turned against him at times, the repression made a lot of people hate the Austrian Empire and the crown, and so they turned to the nationalistic and liberalistic ideas offered to them by people of the same identity.

To oppose this problem, Metternich tried to give the different states some sort of identity which would separate them from others, such as traditions, language and culture. Although this seemed like an almost nationalistic attempt, he never gave the states any real independent power. The so called “local Diets” were not actually given any real power, but were there more for show to make people satisfied towards the crown and the Empire. Another motive behind this way of actually encouraging some identity within the states was to make them feel closer ties to the crown, but also to separate them from each other. This idea of “divide and rule” was something which both Metternich and the emperor were familiar with, if they could get the different states to look towards each other as rivals, attention would be turned away from the Austrian Empire itself and so the states could be controlled:

“My people are strange to each other and that is all right. They do not get the same sickness at the same time… The one does not understand the other and one hates the other… From their antipathy will be born order and from the mutual hatreds general peace”, Emperor Francis to French ambassador (p. 50 The Great Powers)

At least this was the idea, however, the diets soon became centers for Empirical opposition, and the states turned their attention towards the Empire anyway. This effort was thus a failure, Metternich had deeply underestimated the growing nationalism and his encouragement to satisfy the regions had only strengthened its foothold. This was one of the worst of all failures which inevitably led to the 1848 revolutions.

To some extent Metternich may have delayed the 1848 revolutions, but also, his actions were at sometimes so inaccurate that they actually encouraged the revolutions. His limited power and the ultra-conservative Emperor Francis also played a vital role in the inevitable downfall, but in the end, Metternich’s policies were doomed to fail. The ruthless repression, at times was successfully restoring order, was however also a failure, as it finally brought on more incentives to strengthen the nationalism and with more extreme leading figures, at the top of the revolutionary ideologies.
The attempt to achieve regional contentment and to separate the states from each other was also a failure, as the encouragement of identity only strengthened the growth of nationalism and the revolutionary ideas against the Empire.
Metternich did not succeed in dealing with the principal problems of the Austrian Empire, and finally, his attempts inevitably led to the 1848 revolutions. Although he can be said to be partially responsible, he had only limited power, and furthermore the civilization can be said to have been at a crucial stage at this time, making it impossible to stop the actual development of society.

Lägga upp Word dokument på bloggen!

Om ni vill lägga upp word dokument på bloggen så kan ni gömma dem i .rar dokument innuti bilder: gör bara som bilden beskriver.



Till exempel: i den här bilden finns en .rar fil (kan öppnas med WinRar) som innehåller en eh... kokbok i .PDF fromat.

questions - educating Rita, by russel

Educating Rita

By Willy Russell


What does Rita gain from her education and what does she lose?53

Firstly, Rita is a 26 year old woman that does not live in an intellectual environment, something that means that she has plenty to learn from Frank. Rita did not gain the proper opportunity to study, as she sometimes desired “See, if I started takin’ school seriously I would have had to become different from me mates, an’ that’s not allowed.” (Page 21)
The environment in which she lived influenced her to a great extent “So y’ never admit that school could be anything’ other then useless.” (Page 21)
This lack of opportunity to study as she sometimes prefers, leads to the fact that she learns more than she loses. During the course at Frank’s, Rita leans how to analyze and how to treat literature. One of the most significant things Rita learns is how to write an essay in an appropriate way. Rita’s first essay turns out to be a disaster; she must learn how to write references: “Rita, how the hell can you write an essay on E.M Forster with almost total reference to Harold Robbins?” (Page 29) Rita must learn about source criticism “Crap? And who are you citing in support of your thesis, F.R Leavis?” “No. Me!” (Page 23)
Throughout the play you can notice how Rita’s essays develop. On page 71 you can see how Rita’s essay is written properly but this time Frank does not like it because, according to Rita, he is subjective. Simultaneously, Rita discovers the secret of intellectual conversations. Throughout the play she learns from Frank how to structure an argument properly, this means first to make a statement, then give an example and ultimately explain. Towards the end, she does this quite often “I walked over an’ said, ‘Excuse me but I couldn’t help overhearin’ the rubbish you were spotting about Lawrence’. […] The next thing is there’s this heated discussion, with me right in the middle of it.” (Page 67)
This scene proves how Rita has developed. She gained the knowledge and the courage that is needed for an argumentative discussion.
Frank helps Rita to expand her vocabulary. In the beginning of the play, you can notice Rita’s sometimes informal language, which also every now and then creates misunderstandings between the two main characters “No. Roger McGough. It was about this old man who runs away from hospital an’ goes out on the ale. He gets pissed an’ stands in the street shoutin’… […] It’s dead good.” (Page 7) You can observe Rita’s informal language here. Her language contains plenty of abbreviations as well. This might decrease the quality of the spoken language. The example above can be compared with “But Frank, I have to persevere in order that I shall.” (Page 66) Here, Rita illustrates the fact that she must talk properly in everyday situations. Also, towards the end Rita does not use as many abbreviations as in the start. It may be visible that Rita improves her language and expand her vocabulary.
As almost everything in everyday life, her education contains not only advantages but drawbacks as well.
As I mentioned above Rita did not gain the proper opportunity to study, also because of her family and friends. The educations Rita gains might distance her from her family and friends. This for example, was one of the causes that ended Rita’s relationship with Denny “No. I don’t wanna talk about Denny. […] Why was Chekhov a comic genius?” (Page 40)
Here we can see that Rita feels a bigger connection to knowledge than Denny. Several times Denny showed his anger and explained that this was because her education. The education created vast differences between Rita and her family and friends. These differences might distance her from the environment she used to live in.

Compare and contrast the way Rita and Frank use language throughout Educating Rita.
Both Rita and Frank wish the surrounding to identify them by their usage of language similarities!!!!!!!!!!!



From the beginning of the play there exists a huge contrast between Frank’s and Rita’s language. Frank is about fifty years old and has worked with literature the big majority of his life, something that improved his language incredibly “But the term ‘beautiful’ covers the many feelings I have about that picture, including the feeling that, yes, it is erotic.” (Page 5) You can notice how the sentence contains formal language and is even well structured in the conversation’s context.
Rita, on the other hand, comes from an uneducated family and from a non intellectual environment. Rita’s problem in the beginning of the play is the language. She replies often with witty lines but the lack of formal language makes her argument weaker “I’ll bet he did y’ know. You don’t paint pictures like that just so that people can admire the brush strokes, do y’?” “Frank (Giving a short laugh) No-no-you’re probably right.” (Page 5) Here you can observe that Frank agrees with Rita, to a certain extent, that the painting is erotic. If she had used a more advanced and formal language, Frank would probably agree with her entirely.
In the last part of the play you can see the development of Rita’s language (Page 66), while Frank’s, according to me, has not altered.


Rita describes herself as a ‘half-caste’, neither fitting comfortably into her own society or that of Frank. Find evidence for this. How appropriate would it be to describe Frank in the same way? Explain.
As I mentioned before Rita comes from a non intellectual environment. What makes her special and different is her desire to study. This is why does not feel full connection to the environment she lives in “I mean, there was always somethin’ in me head, tappin’ away, tellin’ me I might have got it all wrong. But I’d just play another record or buy another dress and stop worryin’ […] Is this the absolute maximum I can expect from this living lark? […] And it’s really tempting to go out and get another dress y’ know, it is. Cause it’s easy, it doesn’t cost anything, doesn’t upset anyone around y’. Like cos they don’t want y’ to change.” (Page 21) This quotation shows that Rita wanted more from life, but the people around her influenced her in a negative way and this is why she did not fit comfortably into her own society.
The play is about educating Rita, this means that Rita does not fit into Frank’s society yet. It takes a time before she can feel a part of Frank’s educated society. The more time it will pass the more Rita will feel connections to Frank’s society. These quotations are taken from the play’s last pages
“[…] Rita: What you can’t bear is that I am educated now read […]” (Page 78) and “Frank: Is that all you wanted? Have you come all this way for so very, very little? ” (Page 79)
In the first example, Rita realizes the fact that she is educated, while Frank, in the second quotation, explains that Rita is still a half-cast because she must continue with her studies in order to feel full connection to such a society.

4. Look closely at Act 1, scenes 6-7. Explain why Frank invites her to dinner and ultimately, why she fails to turn up.
In the beginning of Scene 6, Rita bursts trough Frank’s door and interrupts him by telling about the play that she has seen. Rita explains what a magnificent time she has had at the theater. Frank and Rita start an intense conversation about Macbeth, the play that Rita went to.
Understanding the fact that Rita is deeply interested in literature and intellectual life, Frank gives her the opportunity to come for dinner. Frank notices that Rita might now be able to cope with a conversation with educated people and simultaneously that she must experience such a great event. Frank is also familiar with the fact that Rita does not live in an intellectual environment and has not the opportunity to go to dinner with such kind of people.
At the same time, according to me, Frank wants to be thankful “Rita: I just had to tell to someone who’d understand” “Frank: I’m honored that you chose me.” (Page 47)
Rita is revealing something that might be considered by Frank as emotional. In this case he wanted to be thankful as well. So, Frank invites Rita to dinner because she is deeply interested in literature and intellectual life and because Frank wanted to give Rita the opportunity ‘to sing a better song.’
Unfortunately, Rita does not show up. The main reason why Rita did not come was because she did not feel intellectual prepared “I am alright with you, here in this room; but when I saw those people you were with I couldn’t come in.” (Page 52) This failed attempt of entering Frank’s society shows that Rita is still a half-caste.

5. Explain Willy Russell’s use of humor in the play. Hint: You might begin by looking at the misunderstandings which arise between Frank and Rita at the beginning of the play, a consequence of their different social/ cultural backgrounds.
The humor in the play occurs in situations quite often. The misunderstandings arise often because Rita’s personality. She has the desire to talk rapidly and she gets often off topic. Already on the second page we are give such an example “Frank: You are? Rita: What am I? Frank: Pardon? Rita: What? Frank: Now you are? Rita: I’m what? ”
Rita’s personality, her openness, her desire for studies, her dialect and her thoughts play a big part of the play’s humor.
Another humorous act of Rita is every time she gets of topic after she started a discussion
“Rita: That’s a nice picture; isn’t it? […] Frank: I think it’s very beautiful. Rita: I didn’t ask if it was beautiful. […] Rita: D’ y’ get a lot like me? Frank: Pardon?” (Page 5)
This quotation is taken from their very first dialog, when Rita refuses to answer Frank’s question. She suddenly changes the topic and starts discussing about a picture on the wall and after a short time she changes topic again. Frank does not always succeed to keep up with Rita’s discussions, something that may be amusing.

6.

What consequences for the Swedish language are there of this English-language expansion into secondary school system education? Should the government

What consequences for the Swedish language are there of this English-language expansion into secondary school system education? Should the government make any restrictions? Why or why not?


I want to begin with my burning interest in English studies, something that might affect my opinion towards this area. Anyhow, some languages and of course cultures are considered, more or less, being under threat because the English-language expansion. Throughout the whole history, nations have expanded and that expansion brought about the death of some cultures and languages. We can notice and come to the conclusion that the extent to which a language can be reborn is very small. This is why I will look closer to the question:
What consequences for the Swedish language are there of this English language expansion into secondary school system education? Should the government make any restrictions? Why or why not?
I do not think that the government should make any restrictions within this area and that the consequences are not as negative as in other countries yet.
First of all, I have to mention the big American-life style-influence- that exists in Sweden. As many people know, food habits, fashion etc. are imported directly mostly from the USA and then from other countries as well. This great influenced Sweden, has affected the local language to a great extent, but one factor that might help the Swedish language stay alive under a longer period of time, is the people’s awareness of the English influenced Swedish. With the help of this factor, people can conserve old traditions more, something that may help the Swedish language. This is why I believe that the English language does not create significant negative consequences. Furthermore, the English loan words even enrich the Swedish vocabulary. Words as: alliteration, gravitation, Darwinism etc. emphasize my opinion. This is one reason for the Swedish government not to take any restrictions.
There are many other factors that affect my opinion about the English influence on Swedish, but as far as I understand, in Sweden, this expansion creates more then it destroys.
As far as the people are aware of this fact and as long as they do something about this, for example conserving old traditions and give birth to diasporas abroad, the English- language expansion represents no major consequences. Another process that underlines my theory is that the English loan words enrich the Swedish language, something which is mainly positive.
As I wrote above, the Swedish government should not take any restrictions yet and the present consequences are mostly unimportant.

Strindberg, Fadren och Könskampen

Strindberg, Fadren och Könskampen
Intro:
NIONDE SCENEN
De förre. Laura.
Laura Jaså, Bertha är där! Då kanske vi kan få höra hennes egen mening, då frågan om hennes öde skall avgöras.
Ryttmästarn Barnet kan väl knappt ha någon grundad mening om huru en ung flickas liv kommer att gestalta sig, vilket vi däremot lättare kunna ungefär beräkna, då vi sett ett stort antal unga flickors liv utveckla sig.
Laura Men efter som vi äro av olika mening, kan ju Bertha få ge utslaget.
Ryttmästarn Nej! Jag låter ingen inkräkta på mina rättigheter, varken kvinnor eller eller barn. Bertha, lämna oss.
Bertha går ut.
Laura Du fruktade hennes uttalande, emedan du trodde att det skulle bli till min fördel.
Ryttmästarn Jag vet, att hon själv vill ifrån hemmet, men jag vet också, att du äger makt ändra hennes vilja efter behag.
Laura Å, är jag så mäktig!
Ryttmästarn Ja, du har en satanisk makt att få igenom din vilja, men det får alltid den som icke skyr medlen. Hur fick du till exempel bort doktor Norling och hur fick du hit den nya?
Laura Ja, hur fick jag det?
Ryttmästarn Du skymfade den förre, så han gick, och lät din bror skaffa röster åt den här.
Laura Nå, det var ju mycket enkelt och fullkomligt lagligt. Ska Bertha resa nu?
Ryttmästarn Ja, om fjorton dagar skall hon resa.
Laura Är det ditt beslut?
Ryttmästarn Ja!
Laura Har du talat vid Bertha om det?
Ryttmästarn Ja!
Laura Då får jag lov att söka hindra det!
Ryttmästarn Det kan du inte!
Laura Inte! Tror du att en mor släpper ut sitt barn bland dåliga människor att lära sig, det allt vad modern inplantat är dumheter, så att hon sedan får gå föraktad av sin dotter hela sitt liv.
Ryttmästarn Tror du att en far vill tillåta okunniga och inbilska kvinnor lära dottren att fadren var en charlatan?
Laura Det skulle nu betyda mindre med fadren.
Ryttmästarn Varför så?
Laura Därför att modren är närmare till barnet, sedan man upptäckt att ingen egentligen kan veta vem som är ett barns fader.
Ryttmästarn Vad har det för tillämpning i det här fallet?
Laura Inte vet du om du är Berthas far!
Ryttmästarn Vet jag inte!
Laura Nej, det ingen kan veta, det väl inte du!
Ryttmästarn Skämtar du?
Laura Nej, jag begagnar endast dina lärdomar. För övrigt, hur vet du att jag inte varit dig otrogen?
Ryttmästarn Mycket tror jag dig om, men det inte, och inte det heller om du skulle tala om det, såvida det var sant.
Lura Antag att jag föredrog allt, att bli utstött, föraktad, allt för att få behålla och råda över mitt barn, och att jag nu voro uppriktig, när jag förklarade: Bertha är mitt, men inte ditt barn! Antag...
Ryttmästarn Sluta nu!
Laura Antag bara detta: då vore din makt ute!
Ryttmästarn Sedan du bevisat, att jag icke var fadren!
Laura Det vore väl inte svårt! Skulle du vilja det?
Ryttmästarn Sluta nu!
Laura Jag skulle naturligtvis bara behöva uppge namnet på den verklige fadren, närmare bestämma plats och tidpunkt, till exempel -, när är Bertha född? - tredje året efter vigseln...
Ryttmästarn Sluta nu! Annars...
Laura Annars vad? Vi ska sluta nu! Men tänk noga på vad du gör och beslutar! Och gör dig framför allt inte löjlig!
Ryttmästarn Jag finner allt detta ytterst sorgligt!
Laura Desto löjligare blir du!
Ryttmästarn Men inte du!
Laura Nej, så klokt har vi fått det ställt.
Ryttmästarn Det är därför man inte kan strida med er.
Laura Varför inlåter du dig i strid med en överlägsen fiende.
Ryttmästarn Överlägsen?
Laura Ja! Eget är det, men jag har aldrig kunnat se på en man, utan att känna mig överlägsen.
Ryttmästarn Nå, då skall du få se din överman en gång, så du aldrig glömmer det.
Laura Det skall bli intressant.
Amman (in) Bordet är serverat. Behagar inte herrskapet stiga ut och spisa?
Laura Jo gärna!
Ryttmästarn dröjer; sätter sig i en fåtölj vid divanbordet.
Laura Ska du komma och äta kväll?
Ryttmästarn Nej, tack, jag vill ingenting ha!
Laura Va! Är du ledsen?
Ryttmästarn Nej, men jag är inte hungrig.
Laura Kom nu, annars ska man göra frågor som - äro onödiga! - Var snäll nu! - Du vill inte, så sitt där då!
(Går.)

Amman Herr Adolf! Vad är det här för slag?
Ryttmästarn Jag vet inte vad det är. Kan du förklara mig hur ni kan behandla en gammal man som om han vore ett barn!
Amman Inte förstår jag det, men det är väl därför att ni äro kvinnors barn alla män, stora som små...
Ryttmästarn Men ingen kvinna är av man född. Ja, men jag är ju Berthas far. Säg, Margret, tror du inte det? Tror du inte?
Amman Å gud, vad han är barnslig. Visst är han väl sitt eget barns far. Kom och ät nu, och sitt inte där och sura! Så! Så, kom nu bara!
Ryttmästarn (stiger upp) Gå ut kvinna! Åt helvete häxor!
(Till tamburdörren.) Svärd! Svärd!
Kalfaktorn (in) Herr ryttmästarn!
Ryttmästarn Låt sätta för kappsläden, genast!
Amman Herr ryttmästarn! Hör nu på...
Ryttmästarn Ut kvinna! Genast!
Amman Bevara oss gud, vad skall nu bli av?
Ryttmästarn
(tar på sig mössan och rustar att gå ut) Vänta mig icke hem före midnatt!
(Går.)


Fadren är ett drama skrivet av August Strindberg och temat är kampen mellan könen som vi precis har visat exempel på, det är en stark och hetsig dialog igenom hela boken som bara tycks blir mer hetsig för varje scen. Dramat är uppbyggt i tre akter, med rollerna Ryttmästaren, Laura, Pastorn, Bertha (hans dotter), Doktor Östermark, Amman, Nöjd och Kallfaktorn.
I Fadren kan vi också utläsa många motiv som drar nära paralleller till Strindbergs liv. T.ex. Så är Ryttmästaren vetenskapsman och hindras i sitt arbete av Laura, såsom Strindberg kan ha uppfattat sitt liv som vetenskapsman med Siri. Samma sak är med Ryttmästarens tvivel om att han faktiskt är son till sitt barn, som också är ett av motiven i boken. Laura väcker hans oro genom en ironi om att han faktiskt inte kan veta om barnet är hans och han går rätt i fällan, och det blir hans undergång. Strindberg hade samma problem med Siri, och hon hade dessutom varit otrogen och Strindberg gruvade sig mycket över om han faktiskt var far till vissa av sina barn.
Sen har vi ett av de starkaste motiven i dramat vilket är själsmordet. Jag tänker inte gå in på handlingen eftersom jag inte vill avslöja slutet, men det syftar på, att man endast med psykisk press kan driva en person så långt att det slutar i galenskap och till och med död.
I många verk så drar Strindberg nära paralleller till sitt eget liv och Fadren är ett mycket bra exempel på det, motiven, rollerna och intrigerna är så som Strindberg upplevde dem i sitt liv. Med det vill jag avsluta och tacka Anna för att hon varit med och haft en av dialogerna från Fadren med mig.