The Trouble with Caliban

Certainly the character from the Tempest that has drawn the most interest over the years is Caliban. Yesterday we talked about his status in the play vis-a-vis Ariel, discussing both their similarities and differences. We focused on the nature of his relationship with Prospero and the reasons for his service to Prospero, which is a rationale of force, in essence, if he does not do what Prospero says, Prospero will inflict pain on him. What was not discussed, and what I hope we will have a chance to talk about, is what Caliban has been taken to represent by many interpreters of the play.

Historical contexts are essential to interpreting the play, and at the time the play was written there were many explorations going on by Europeans into the "New World," and the first contact with Native Americans had been reported on. Unsurprisingly, they were primarily viewed as primitive savages in need of civilization by Europeans. But what is Caliban, but a primitive savage (Miranda taught him language) who is tamed by the Prospero, the European who comes to the land that Caliban says was rightfully his. This savage is not only uncivilized but behaves abominably, attempting to rape Miranda. So the question interpreters ask is whether Shakespeare is validating the European role in colonizing foreign lands with the actions of Caliban. The argument goes: Prospero is the protagonist of the play and we are meant to sympathize with him and his actions. One of those action is his relationship with Caliban. Hence, we are meant to look approvingly on the relationship that Prospero has with Caliban and, by analogy, on the relationship that Europeans have with the Americas.

On the other side of the coin (and there is always another side of the coin) perhaps we are meant to view Prospero's actions unfavorably, not at all sympathizing with the threat of force he holds over Caliban but instead viewing his relationship with Caliban as unjustified and abusive.\--and, by analogy, hold be critical of the European relationship with Native Ameircans.

What do you think?

Reason, faith, and the public sphere

The class today was primarily a review of the youtube lecture on the difference between the worldview of classical Greek and early Christian thought. Like the lecture, the class focused on three areas where classical Greek and early Christian thought diverge: what is the concept of the good person, what is the right thing to do and why to people do the wrong thing. In each case, the answer is some version of the dichotomy between reason and faith.


One interesting area of this conflict not discussed today but hopefully at a future time is whether in a pluralistic society one is justified in bringing religious discussion into political debates. At one end are those who think religious belief has no place in debate on public issues. That is, religious belief can inform but not dictate the rationale on has for holding an opinion. So, according to this view, I may think that homosexuality is wrong. But if I am going to enter the public sphere, I cannot claim simply that it is wrong because it says so in the Bible. I must present some justification that can be put into an argumentative form and rationally debated. The value here is that if I say I am opposed to homosexuality and decide to provide a reason, such as, homosexuality leads to the breakdown of the family, I have offered up a proposition that can then be either refuted or supported by evidence. But if I put forward a proposition like, I think homosexuality is wrong because it says so in the Bible, there is no argument that can ever be employed against me, because my claim is a matter of faith.


Some (probably most, actually) see this as an unjustified burden on religious belief and claim that "it says so in the Bible" is as much of a reasoned justification as anything. Look, they will say, if it is legitimate to ground my moral beliefs in faith, then it is legitimate to bring that faith into public debate


What do you think?

Dante and Citizens United

As you probably gathered from my comments in class, Dante's discussion of fraud always gets me thinking about politics, all the more so on a day like today, Super Tuesday of a primary season. Let's start with a term you probably had not heard before: Technically speaking, a barrator is one who "sells justice, office, or employment." The term always sets me to thinking about lobbyists.

A lobbyist uses money to influence a member of Congress to vote the way he/she wants that member of Congress to vote. Now, technically speaking it is the politician who is selling the justice or office insofar as it is the politician who is giving the favor. But certainly the lobbyist belongs in there as well, since he is complicit in the act. On a larger scale but in the same spirit of lobbyists are the Political Action Committees (pacs) that essentially foot the bills for political campaigns. LIke lobbyists, if you are going to donate to a politician's campaign, you are going to want something in return. The problem has been made worse in recent years by a Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United, which essentially allowed these PACs to contribute unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns.


Most of the political campaigns, with the exception of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, are being assisted by such PACs. Invariably, these companies are going to want something in return for their money. A system of public financing could eliminate this activity to a large degree, since the campaigns wold be funded by public money and no private money would be allowed in. The moral advantage of such a system should be obvious. Some may object that this is a limitation on freedom of speech, but freedom of speech is not an absolute right. There are certain instances where the public good trumps freedom of speech. For example, speech that is specifically intended and/or likely to cause violence is not protected speech. And, famously, you do not have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded building. SO I think a case can be made that the vice associated with private campaign donations is enough of a threat to the public good so as to allow a restriction on private campaign contributions at least for presidential races, and perhaps for all national races. And I'd like to think I'd have Dante on my side on this one.