Philosopher/Character Analysis Essay
_
HOMER
According to the Homeric concept of goodness, to be good means to fulfill your role in society well. Therefore, your character does not determine goodness. This also means that there is no universal standard for good, but rather each role has its own set of standards that one is supposed to follow. The criteria for goodness are external to the individual. This means that the consumer(s) and the person(s) in command decide the standards for each role. It is not up to the individual to decide what is good or not.
Pat Conroy
For Pat Conroy, his role in society is to teach. According to the consumers, his students and their families, he is a very good teacher. Edna, the grandmother of several of his students, as well as many others, would agree that “[Conroy] is a wonnerful teacher” (133). However, his superiors would beg to differ. Mrs. Brown, the principal of the school, constantly reprimands him for his teaching strategies, telling him that they are ineffective. Conroy is eventually fired because there were “a lot of complaints about [him]” (257). So, if you were to evaluate Conroy’s goodness, it would be difficult, seeing as the consumers and superiors have opposing views of how capable he is of teaching.
Mrs. Brown
With the Homeric concept of goodness, Mrs. Brown’s role in society, like Conroy, is to teach. And, like Conroy, she has mixed reviews concerning her teaching skills – but the positions are switched in this situation. Her superiors praise her constantly. Ezra Bennington says that she is the “first decent teacher [he] could get” and that she could “lift these people up” (17, 22). However, the consumers do not agree with this. The students “[hate] Mrs. Brown’s guts with their complete power of hating” (159). The parents also think she is a horrible teacher. Indeed, they all participate in the fight to maintain Conroy’s job so that their children would not have to be taught by Mrs. Brown. So, again, like Conroy, Mrs. Brown’s goodness would be hard to determine according to Homer’s method.
ARISTOTLE
Aristotle’s concept of goodness and virtue are made up of several concepts. The first concept is the Doctrine of the Mean. The Doctrine of the Mean is a concept that states that moderation is virtue. Excess and deficiency are both considered being vices according to this concept. Aristotle also thinks that the virtues are universal, but the meaning of the virtues is different depending upon one’s abilities. For Aristotle, virtue is also “doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in the right place, for the right reasons, with the right intentions” (Harvey, 2011). Aristotle also believes that people should treat one “as an individual, not a representative of a group” (Harvey, 2011). Lastly, a concept of Aristotle is that a person’s good judgment is developed through experience.
Pat Conroy
Conroy believes in the Doctrine of the Mean. He applies this concept when teaching the students of Yamacraw Island. He has universal goals for all of his students: increasing their reading and writing levels, increasing their understanding of the world around them, as well as other things. However, his eighteen students all have different abilities and have started at different levels of education. Therefore, educational success, or virtue, cannot be universal. He does not expect his students “to be candidates for a Rhodes scholarship,” or even every student to be able to write at the same level by the end of year (156). Rather, he appreciates the small accomplishments of each student, which to them is a grand accomplishment. For Sidney and Samuel, two of his students, moderation of educational success is learning to “scratch their names legibly on a piece of paper” (157). For other students, moderation is something else.
Conroy also follows the “right place, right time” concept. He applies this concept to his teaching methods. To follow the idea of this concept, the right teaching method isn’t always virtuous or successful depending upon the place, time, etc. What works in one situation may not work in another. The way Conroy taught the high school students of Beaufort was certainly different then the way he teaches the children of Yamacraw Island. While he used textbooks with the students of Beaufort, he doesn’t use them with the children of Yamacraw because he knows they couldn’t read that well. Conroy doesn’t even stick to the same teaching method when teaching the children of Yamacraw. When he notices one method is making the children bored, he switches what he was doing to keep their interest peaked. His methods even differ depending on the specific student – he treats each person “as an individual, not a representative of a group” (Harvey, 2011). Conroy used the “right place, right time” concept when arguing with his superiors about his gas money being paid by the state. While his superiors argued for universality – every teacher is governed by the same rules – he argued that his situation was different. Most teachers didn’t have to cross a river to get to work, so how could the same rules be applied to this situation?
Lastly, Conroy believes that was good judgment is learned. He believes that ignorance is the basis of the kids’ wrongdoing and that if he teaches them what is right, they would become good people. For example, he tries to teach the kids to treat animals right because he figured they acted that way because they didn’t know any better. The same applies to the violence in the classroom. He thinks that if he tells the children that it is wrong to hit each other, they would stop. Even though he is generally unsuccessful in changing their ways, he is a firm believer of this concept.
Mrs. Brown
When it comes to the Doctrine of the Mean, Mrs. Brown takes the opposite position. She doesn’t agree with the concept of virtues being universal, but the meaning of the virtues is different depending on one’s abilities. She is just a believer of complete universality. One example of this is the way she thinks of the kids. She recognized that some are smart, and that some are “slow,” “lazy,” or “retarded” (26). Despite this recognition, she still expects them to learn at the same rate. She simply tells the students who are less intelligent to “work even harder” (26). She doesn’t appreciate the small victories of the children like Conroy does; she just looks down on the children who aren’t on the same level as the smarter children.
Mrs. Brown also doesn’t follow Aristotle’s second definition of “doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in the right place, for the right reasons, with the right intentions” (Harvey, 2011). Mrs. Brown’s teaching methods and morality are unchanging. For example, she doesn’t like accepting change in the curriculum. When Conroy does something out of the ordinary with his children, she yells at him and says, “they need discipline, not fun” (32). In fact, when Conroy does anything out of the ordinary, she reprimands him and reminds him what the “right” thing is.
Mrs. Brown also differs from Conroy on the concept of treating each person “as an individual, not a representative of a group” (Harvey, 2011). She does not agree with this concept and often treats people as simply a representative of a group. She often talks about black people, using generalizations as if they all act the same way. When Conroy first arrives on the island, she tells him, “I know colored people better than you do” and continues to tell him what black people are like (24). She also treats the children as one general group, as shown by her single teaching method. If she treated the children as individuals, she would be more like Conroy and tailor her teaching method to the needs of each given child.
KANT
Kant believes that there are three motives for action. The first motive is inclination. To act off of inclination means that one does an act because they want to or because it causes them pleasure. The second motive is interest. To act off of inclination means that one does an act because of the consequences or benefits. The last motive is duty. To act off of duty means that one does an act because it is the right thing to do – and no other reason. To Kant, duty is the only motive that has any moral worth. This is because he believes treating others well is the basics of ethics – and he believes that inclination and interest are both selfish acts.
Kant also believes that there should be a universal moral standard that is based on reason. Reason is independent of experience, meaning that it is a priori. Kant disagrees with the posteriori method because some experiences have irreversible consequences. To figure out whether an action is moral or not, Kant created a system called the categorical imperative. Through this method, one goes through a series of steps to decide the morality of an action using reason alone. An important part of the categorical imperative is the idea that it is completely universal – no exceptions. Kant didn’t believe in exceptions because exceptions benefit the individual, which puts it outside his moral law mentioned previously.
Another concept of Kant is the idea that people have inherent value. This concept also applies to the second categorical imperative, which states, “act in such a way that you never treat others simply as a means, but also as an end in themselves” (Harvey, 2011). This means that you can use someone (treat someone as a means), but you have to show him or her respect, as well (treat someone as an end).
Lastly, Kant believes in the idea that you should stick with moral law, even when it’s not in accordance with the positive law or way of culture.
Pat Conroy
Conroy doesn’t quite believe in acting on duty alone. He believes in acting on duty, but he also believes that someone could have fun or reap the benefits for doing something right. A prime example of this is Conroy’s teaching method. He believes in keeping things interesting in his class – whether it is listening to music or watching films, it was always intended for the kids to enjoy. He obviously believes that the kids need to learn, but he believes it does not have to be a painstaking process. Also, he doesn’t agree with the idea of gaining knowledge just to have that knowledge – his goal is to teach these kids so that they could have the possibility of reaping the benefits of the big cities of America.
Conroy does not agree with using reason and the categorical imperative because he believes in trial and error. As mentioned previously, Conroy believes in learning through experience. He even said himself that he “did things more by instinct than by logic” (239). When it comes to his teaching method, he tries out different teaching methods, not knowing if they will be successful. Not only does he apply this to his teaching method, but he also displays this in the way he interacts with people. For example, Conroy speaks to his superiors, Dr. Peidmont and Ezra Bennington, in an unprofessional manner, not considering the consequences of his actions. As it turns out, by acting this way, he “lost favor with the administrative juggernaut of Beaufort County” (188). Conroy also states that he responds to crisis “with a terrible emotionalism that is childish and soon regretted” (276). This shows that he acts more on impulse, rather than acting on reason.
Conroy believes there were exceptions, himself included. When it comes to the children, he believes they should be exempt from using the textbook. It is required by the state that they use the given textbook, but the children are an exception because they can’t read the textbook. He also believes he is an exception to the rule that the state doesn’t pay for travel expenses. He believes this because he knows that he is most likely the only teacher who travels to work via boat. Also, when asked by Dr. Piedmont if he has been late, Conroy continues to explain his unique reasons why he was late. Conroy then tells him, “if you think teachin’ on your little island is exactly like teachin’ anywhere else in this county, you’re crazy” (259). Conroy believes that you can’t simply apply one rule for all people. Different parts of the world – or county – will always have their differences. Thus, there should be room for exceptions.
There are concepts of Kant that Conroy doesn’t believe in, however. He certainly believes in inherent worth. He doesn’t ignore children because they are “slow” or “retarded” (26). He also spends considerable time convincing them of “their basic worth” (54). He even discusses the “basic worth and goodness” of Ted and Lou Stone, the people who “ruled Yamacraw Island,” and people who certainly have their flaws (181). Since he believes everyone has inherent value, he also treats people as an end. While he may use people for his advantage, he always treats them with respect. An example of this is his friend Bernie. He uses him to make his field trips possible, but he also values the friendship they share.
Lastly, Conroy believes in sticking with moral law when it is in conflict with positive law. A prime example of this is when Conroy and his wife house several of the black students of Yamacaw Island so that they can attend high school. They are in the heart of the Civil Rights Movement and the people of their community “don’t want nobody who helps the colored” (281). Despite this knowledge, he and his wife decide to house them anyway because that is the morally right thing to do.
Mrs. Brown
Mrs. Brown agrees with Kant on the idea of acting on duty alone. She is a firm believer in the view that one cannot have fun while learning. Every time she sees Conroy and his students having fun, she barges in and tells him, “we’re not here to have fun. We’re here to educate” (117). She says the same thing when Conroy suggests field trips, as well. Children are to become educated out of a sense of duty – and it was completely exclusive from interest or inclination. Despite this, Mrs. Brown appears to act out of interest at times. She is constantly trying to impress her white superiors. She “nod[s] her head in agreement every time [Bennington] open[s] his mouth” to show respect and never strays once from the rules to show how great of a teacher she is (22). By acting in this way, she stays in the favor of her superiors. This benefits her because it gives her greater job security. Also, the more she sides with the whites, the further she is from her culture, of which she is ashamed. In the final analysis, this benefits her because it makes her feel better about herself.
Mrs. Brown also agrees with the categorical imperative. This is because she is not a fan of the trial and error method. She believes, like Kant, that some things can lead to irreversible consequences. For example, when Conroy decides to have fun and challenge the kids to fight him, Mrs. Brown tells him, “you’ve already lost the respect of these children” (32). To her, this was an irreversible consequence. He should have used reason and thought it through instead of acting on impulse. Also, whenever Conroy is doing something out of the ordinary, she asks him, “what if some administrator had surprised us with a visit?” (168). Mrs. Brown always looks ahead and thinks things through before acting on them.
She also agrees with the idea of having a universal moral standard, with no exceptions. This is shown in her way of punishment. If she sees something she doesn’t like, the child gets punished – no ifs, ands, or buts. There is never a time where she seriously considers one’s intent. The child could be purposefully doing something wrong or they could be doing something wrong out of ignorance – it didn’t really matter to her. Another example of this is her devotion to the rules. There is never a good enough reason to break the rules; to her, rules are rules and they are meant to be followed.
This also shows how she is in disaccord with one of Kant’s theories – following the moral law over the positive law. While we don’t get too much insight into what she truly believes in, we know about her strict adherence to the positive law. As I just mentioned, there is never a time when she breaks positive law. There is never a time where she stands for anything she believes in when it is against positive law.
Mrs. Brown also doesn’t believe that people had inherent value. She doesn’t value the kids who she believes are “retarded” (26). She believes they aren’t worth her time and effort to teach them. Also, Mrs. Brown constantly derided the blacks. She speaks of blacks as if they are animals. She is “unflinching, strong-armed proponent of white values, mores, and attitudes” (155).
FREUD
Freud’s major concept is the idea that there are three parts of the self. One part is called id, which is where our instinctual drives come from. Freud states that we have two instinctual drives: thanatos and eros. Thanatos is the instinct of aggression and conflict, while eros is the instinct of love and pleasure. Freud believes that our instincts are not socially acceptable and lead to internal chaos in society.
Freud believes that in order to maintain order in society, one has to transform these instinctual drives into something that doesn’t harm society. Sublimation is one form of transformation that includes repression and displacement. Repression is simply resisting the impulse and burying it into the unconscious. Displacement is putting the energy from the original goal onto a new goal. Another form of transformation is delayed gratification; this is postponing exercising a drive until a later time where it will be socially acceptable.
Another part of the self is called the superego. The superego is our conscience and where morality comes from. We get this morality from society, according to Freud. If one follows the rules and conforms to society, that person is good and moral. This means that people are naturally immoral.
Pat Conroy
Conroy agrees that the instinctual drives are not socially acceptable, and is in fact the living proof of this concept. His acts of aggression toward his superiors and his “love” for his black students all lead toward the downturn of his career. His aggression causes chaos within the board, causing them to believe that he is a bad teacher. His love for his black students causes chaos within his community when he decides to house his students. He also gets fired as the junior varsity basketball coach at the high school he used to teach at because the head coach thought he “favored the ‘coloreds’” (13).
Conroy applies displacement when teaching his students at Yamacraw Island. He believes in recess, which is a form of displacement. At recess, the children play football or basketball, which are releases of energy. This energy is displaced from the violence that takes place in the school into a fun game. He also tries to get the children to displace the violent energy into learning. He did this by implementing an energetic form of teaching called the “pep-rally method” (57). This method gets the kids excited and makes them release a lot of their energy that would otherwise likely be released through violence.
Conroy does not agree with the concept of the superego. He is certainly not one who conforms to society. He believes that society is flawed and that it is up to the individual to take a stand and make a difference. At the end of the novel, Conroy discusses how prior to the Civil Rights Movement, what was important was “order, control, obedience, and smooth sailing” (290). It wasn’t until like people went against society’s will that the social injustice was able to change. He himself goes against society’s will with his special attention to these students at Yamacraw and not treating them like they are less than anyone else. Also, he can’t believe in the superego because Conroy believes people have innate morality and that people have “basic worth” (54).
Mrs. Brown
Like Conroy, Mrs. Brown agrees that the two instinctual drives are not socially acceptable. This is especially pertinent for her because she is black in the height of the Civil Rights Movement. She doesn’t really have room to disrupt the norms of society because she would endure greater punishment. Mrs. Brown is unlike Conroy in this aspect – while he fights for his beliefs and follows his instincts, she tends to go with the flow of society and she never lets her impulses get the best of her. This is why she follows the rules so strictly. If she didn’t, she would be fired faster than Conroy.
Mrs. Brown also agrees with the idea of repression, but she doesn’t appear to agree with displacement. While she allows recess at her school, it isn’t for the same reason that Conroy allows it. In the absence of some law that requires recess for children, she’d probably have her children in the classroom all day. She believes there is never a time to show one’s instinctual behavior because she is so concerned with following society’s norms. Whenever the children of Yamacraw behaved incorrectly, she would punish them. She believes that “a child needed a beating…if he [i]s to respect authority, do his lessons, and grow up to make a contribution in his community” (164). She believes that she is shaping these children to follow the norms of the white society so they can succeed in it.
For similar reasons, she agrees with the concept of the superego. As noted previously, she follows the positive law to the tee. She believes that society was the guide for living – she conforms to society and never breaks from it. For example, when Conroy asks for permission to leave school grounds during recess, she objects saying, “you are required to be present on the school grounds at all times” (132). However, we know that she follows the rules to impress her white superiors. So, it does beg the question of whether she actually believes that society is where morality came from or if she simply follows the rules to keep the status quo. To the average spectator, however, she appears to think that societal norms equate to morality.
According to the Homeric concept of goodness, to be good means to fulfill your role in society well. Therefore, your character does not determine goodness. This also means that there is no universal standard for good, but rather each role has its own set of standards that one is supposed to follow. The criteria for goodness are external to the individual. This means that the consumer(s) and the person(s) in command decide the standards for each role. It is not up to the individual to decide what is good or not.
Pat Conroy
For Pat Conroy, his role in society is to teach. According to the consumers, his students and their families, he is a very good teacher. Edna, the grandmother of several of his students, as well as many others, would agree that “[Conroy] is a wonnerful teacher” (133). However, his superiors would beg to differ. Mrs. Brown, the principal of the school, constantly reprimands him for his teaching strategies, telling him that they are ineffective. Conroy is eventually fired because there were “a lot of complaints about [him]” (257). So, if you were to evaluate Conroy’s goodness, it would be difficult, seeing as the consumers and superiors have opposing views of how capable he is of teaching.
Mrs. Brown
With the Homeric concept of goodness, Mrs. Brown’s role in society, like Conroy, is to teach. And, like Conroy, she has mixed reviews concerning her teaching skills – but the positions are switched in this situation. Her superiors praise her constantly. Ezra Bennington says that she is the “first decent teacher [he] could get” and that she could “lift these people up” (17, 22). However, the consumers do not agree with this. The students “[hate] Mrs. Brown’s guts with their complete power of hating” (159). The parents also think she is a horrible teacher. Indeed, they all participate in the fight to maintain Conroy’s job so that their children would not have to be taught by Mrs. Brown. So, again, like Conroy, Mrs. Brown’s goodness would be hard to determine according to Homer’s method.
ARISTOTLE
Aristotle’s concept of goodness and virtue are made up of several concepts. The first concept is the Doctrine of the Mean. The Doctrine of the Mean is a concept that states that moderation is virtue. Excess and deficiency are both considered being vices according to this concept. Aristotle also thinks that the virtues are universal, but the meaning of the virtues is different depending upon one’s abilities. For Aristotle, virtue is also “doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in the right place, for the right reasons, with the right intentions” (Harvey, 2011). Aristotle also believes that people should treat one “as an individual, not a representative of a group” (Harvey, 2011). Lastly, a concept of Aristotle is that a person’s good judgment is developed through experience.
Pat Conroy
Conroy believes in the Doctrine of the Mean. He applies this concept when teaching the students of Yamacraw Island. He has universal goals for all of his students: increasing their reading and writing levels, increasing their understanding of the world around them, as well as other things. However, his eighteen students all have different abilities and have started at different levels of education. Therefore, educational success, or virtue, cannot be universal. He does not expect his students “to be candidates for a Rhodes scholarship,” or even every student to be able to write at the same level by the end of year (156). Rather, he appreciates the small accomplishments of each student, which to them is a grand accomplishment. For Sidney and Samuel, two of his students, moderation of educational success is learning to “scratch their names legibly on a piece of paper” (157). For other students, moderation is something else.
Conroy also follows the “right place, right time” concept. He applies this concept to his teaching methods. To follow the idea of this concept, the right teaching method isn’t always virtuous or successful depending upon the place, time, etc. What works in one situation may not work in another. The way Conroy taught the high school students of Beaufort was certainly different then the way he teaches the children of Yamacraw Island. While he used textbooks with the students of Beaufort, he doesn’t use them with the children of Yamacraw because he knows they couldn’t read that well. Conroy doesn’t even stick to the same teaching method when teaching the children of Yamacraw. When he notices one method is making the children bored, he switches what he was doing to keep their interest peaked. His methods even differ depending on the specific student – he treats each person “as an individual, not a representative of a group” (Harvey, 2011). Conroy used the “right place, right time” concept when arguing with his superiors about his gas money being paid by the state. While his superiors argued for universality – every teacher is governed by the same rules – he argued that his situation was different. Most teachers didn’t have to cross a river to get to work, so how could the same rules be applied to this situation?
Lastly, Conroy believes that was good judgment is learned. He believes that ignorance is the basis of the kids’ wrongdoing and that if he teaches them what is right, they would become good people. For example, he tries to teach the kids to treat animals right because he figured they acted that way because they didn’t know any better. The same applies to the violence in the classroom. He thinks that if he tells the children that it is wrong to hit each other, they would stop. Even though he is generally unsuccessful in changing their ways, he is a firm believer of this concept.
Mrs. Brown
When it comes to the Doctrine of the Mean, Mrs. Brown takes the opposite position. She doesn’t agree with the concept of virtues being universal, but the meaning of the virtues is different depending on one’s abilities. She is just a believer of complete universality. One example of this is the way she thinks of the kids. She recognized that some are smart, and that some are “slow,” “lazy,” or “retarded” (26). Despite this recognition, she still expects them to learn at the same rate. She simply tells the students who are less intelligent to “work even harder” (26). She doesn’t appreciate the small victories of the children like Conroy does; she just looks down on the children who aren’t on the same level as the smarter children.
Mrs. Brown also doesn’t follow Aristotle’s second definition of “doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in the right place, for the right reasons, with the right intentions” (Harvey, 2011). Mrs. Brown’s teaching methods and morality are unchanging. For example, she doesn’t like accepting change in the curriculum. When Conroy does something out of the ordinary with his children, she yells at him and says, “they need discipline, not fun” (32). In fact, when Conroy does anything out of the ordinary, she reprimands him and reminds him what the “right” thing is.
Mrs. Brown also differs from Conroy on the concept of treating each person “as an individual, not a representative of a group” (Harvey, 2011). She does not agree with this concept and often treats people as simply a representative of a group. She often talks about black people, using generalizations as if they all act the same way. When Conroy first arrives on the island, she tells him, “I know colored people better than you do” and continues to tell him what black people are like (24). She also treats the children as one general group, as shown by her single teaching method. If she treated the children as individuals, she would be more like Conroy and tailor her teaching method to the needs of each given child.
KANT
Kant believes that there are three motives for action. The first motive is inclination. To act off of inclination means that one does an act because they want to or because it causes them pleasure. The second motive is interest. To act off of inclination means that one does an act because of the consequences or benefits. The last motive is duty. To act off of duty means that one does an act because it is the right thing to do – and no other reason. To Kant, duty is the only motive that has any moral worth. This is because he believes treating others well is the basics of ethics – and he believes that inclination and interest are both selfish acts.
Kant also believes that there should be a universal moral standard that is based on reason. Reason is independent of experience, meaning that it is a priori. Kant disagrees with the posteriori method because some experiences have irreversible consequences. To figure out whether an action is moral or not, Kant created a system called the categorical imperative. Through this method, one goes through a series of steps to decide the morality of an action using reason alone. An important part of the categorical imperative is the idea that it is completely universal – no exceptions. Kant didn’t believe in exceptions because exceptions benefit the individual, which puts it outside his moral law mentioned previously.
Another concept of Kant is the idea that people have inherent value. This concept also applies to the second categorical imperative, which states, “act in such a way that you never treat others simply as a means, but also as an end in themselves” (Harvey, 2011). This means that you can use someone (treat someone as a means), but you have to show him or her respect, as well (treat someone as an end).
Lastly, Kant believes in the idea that you should stick with moral law, even when it’s not in accordance with the positive law or way of culture.
Pat Conroy
Conroy doesn’t quite believe in acting on duty alone. He believes in acting on duty, but he also believes that someone could have fun or reap the benefits for doing something right. A prime example of this is Conroy’s teaching method. He believes in keeping things interesting in his class – whether it is listening to music or watching films, it was always intended for the kids to enjoy. He obviously believes that the kids need to learn, but he believes it does not have to be a painstaking process. Also, he doesn’t agree with the idea of gaining knowledge just to have that knowledge – his goal is to teach these kids so that they could have the possibility of reaping the benefits of the big cities of America.
Conroy does not agree with using reason and the categorical imperative because he believes in trial and error. As mentioned previously, Conroy believes in learning through experience. He even said himself that he “did things more by instinct than by logic” (239). When it comes to his teaching method, he tries out different teaching methods, not knowing if they will be successful. Not only does he apply this to his teaching method, but he also displays this in the way he interacts with people. For example, Conroy speaks to his superiors, Dr. Peidmont and Ezra Bennington, in an unprofessional manner, not considering the consequences of his actions. As it turns out, by acting this way, he “lost favor with the administrative juggernaut of Beaufort County” (188). Conroy also states that he responds to crisis “with a terrible emotionalism that is childish and soon regretted” (276). This shows that he acts more on impulse, rather than acting on reason.
Conroy believes there were exceptions, himself included. When it comes to the children, he believes they should be exempt from using the textbook. It is required by the state that they use the given textbook, but the children are an exception because they can’t read the textbook. He also believes he is an exception to the rule that the state doesn’t pay for travel expenses. He believes this because he knows that he is most likely the only teacher who travels to work via boat. Also, when asked by Dr. Piedmont if he has been late, Conroy continues to explain his unique reasons why he was late. Conroy then tells him, “if you think teachin’ on your little island is exactly like teachin’ anywhere else in this county, you’re crazy” (259). Conroy believes that you can’t simply apply one rule for all people. Different parts of the world – or county – will always have their differences. Thus, there should be room for exceptions.
There are concepts of Kant that Conroy doesn’t believe in, however. He certainly believes in inherent worth. He doesn’t ignore children because they are “slow” or “retarded” (26). He also spends considerable time convincing them of “their basic worth” (54). He even discusses the “basic worth and goodness” of Ted and Lou Stone, the people who “ruled Yamacraw Island,” and people who certainly have their flaws (181). Since he believes everyone has inherent value, he also treats people as an end. While he may use people for his advantage, he always treats them with respect. An example of this is his friend Bernie. He uses him to make his field trips possible, but he also values the friendship they share.
Lastly, Conroy believes in sticking with moral law when it is in conflict with positive law. A prime example of this is when Conroy and his wife house several of the black students of Yamacaw Island so that they can attend high school. They are in the heart of the Civil Rights Movement and the people of their community “don’t want nobody who helps the colored” (281). Despite this knowledge, he and his wife decide to house them anyway because that is the morally right thing to do.
Mrs. Brown
Mrs. Brown agrees with Kant on the idea of acting on duty alone. She is a firm believer in the view that one cannot have fun while learning. Every time she sees Conroy and his students having fun, she barges in and tells him, “we’re not here to have fun. We’re here to educate” (117). She says the same thing when Conroy suggests field trips, as well. Children are to become educated out of a sense of duty – and it was completely exclusive from interest or inclination. Despite this, Mrs. Brown appears to act out of interest at times. She is constantly trying to impress her white superiors. She “nod[s] her head in agreement every time [Bennington] open[s] his mouth” to show respect and never strays once from the rules to show how great of a teacher she is (22). By acting in this way, she stays in the favor of her superiors. This benefits her because it gives her greater job security. Also, the more she sides with the whites, the further she is from her culture, of which she is ashamed. In the final analysis, this benefits her because it makes her feel better about herself.
Mrs. Brown also agrees with the categorical imperative. This is because she is not a fan of the trial and error method. She believes, like Kant, that some things can lead to irreversible consequences. For example, when Conroy decides to have fun and challenge the kids to fight him, Mrs. Brown tells him, “you’ve already lost the respect of these children” (32). To her, this was an irreversible consequence. He should have used reason and thought it through instead of acting on impulse. Also, whenever Conroy is doing something out of the ordinary, she asks him, “what if some administrator had surprised us with a visit?” (168). Mrs. Brown always looks ahead and thinks things through before acting on them.
She also agrees with the idea of having a universal moral standard, with no exceptions. This is shown in her way of punishment. If she sees something she doesn’t like, the child gets punished – no ifs, ands, or buts. There is never a time where she seriously considers one’s intent. The child could be purposefully doing something wrong or they could be doing something wrong out of ignorance – it didn’t really matter to her. Another example of this is her devotion to the rules. There is never a good enough reason to break the rules; to her, rules are rules and they are meant to be followed.
This also shows how she is in disaccord with one of Kant’s theories – following the moral law over the positive law. While we don’t get too much insight into what she truly believes in, we know about her strict adherence to the positive law. As I just mentioned, there is never a time when she breaks positive law. There is never a time where she stands for anything she believes in when it is against positive law.
Mrs. Brown also doesn’t believe that people had inherent value. She doesn’t value the kids who she believes are “retarded” (26). She believes they aren’t worth her time and effort to teach them. Also, Mrs. Brown constantly derided the blacks. She speaks of blacks as if they are animals. She is “unflinching, strong-armed proponent of white values, mores, and attitudes” (155).
FREUD
Freud’s major concept is the idea that there are three parts of the self. One part is called id, which is where our instinctual drives come from. Freud states that we have two instinctual drives: thanatos and eros. Thanatos is the instinct of aggression and conflict, while eros is the instinct of love and pleasure. Freud believes that our instincts are not socially acceptable and lead to internal chaos in society.
Freud believes that in order to maintain order in society, one has to transform these instinctual drives into something that doesn’t harm society. Sublimation is one form of transformation that includes repression and displacement. Repression is simply resisting the impulse and burying it into the unconscious. Displacement is putting the energy from the original goal onto a new goal. Another form of transformation is delayed gratification; this is postponing exercising a drive until a later time where it will be socially acceptable.
Another part of the self is called the superego. The superego is our conscience and where morality comes from. We get this morality from society, according to Freud. If one follows the rules and conforms to society, that person is good and moral. This means that people are naturally immoral.
Pat Conroy
Conroy agrees that the instinctual drives are not socially acceptable, and is in fact the living proof of this concept. His acts of aggression toward his superiors and his “love” for his black students all lead toward the downturn of his career. His aggression causes chaos within the board, causing them to believe that he is a bad teacher. His love for his black students causes chaos within his community when he decides to house his students. He also gets fired as the junior varsity basketball coach at the high school he used to teach at because the head coach thought he “favored the ‘coloreds’” (13).
Conroy applies displacement when teaching his students at Yamacraw Island. He believes in recess, which is a form of displacement. At recess, the children play football or basketball, which are releases of energy. This energy is displaced from the violence that takes place in the school into a fun game. He also tries to get the children to displace the violent energy into learning. He did this by implementing an energetic form of teaching called the “pep-rally method” (57). This method gets the kids excited and makes them release a lot of their energy that would otherwise likely be released through violence.
Conroy does not agree with the concept of the superego. He is certainly not one who conforms to society. He believes that society is flawed and that it is up to the individual to take a stand and make a difference. At the end of the novel, Conroy discusses how prior to the Civil Rights Movement, what was important was “order, control, obedience, and smooth sailing” (290). It wasn’t until like people went against society’s will that the social injustice was able to change. He himself goes against society’s will with his special attention to these students at Yamacraw and not treating them like they are less than anyone else. Also, he can’t believe in the superego because Conroy believes people have innate morality and that people have “basic worth” (54).
Mrs. Brown
Like Conroy, Mrs. Brown agrees that the two instinctual drives are not socially acceptable. This is especially pertinent for her because she is black in the height of the Civil Rights Movement. She doesn’t really have room to disrupt the norms of society because she would endure greater punishment. Mrs. Brown is unlike Conroy in this aspect – while he fights for his beliefs and follows his instincts, she tends to go with the flow of society and she never lets her impulses get the best of her. This is why she follows the rules so strictly. If she didn’t, she would be fired faster than Conroy.
Mrs. Brown also agrees with the idea of repression, but she doesn’t appear to agree with displacement. While she allows recess at her school, it isn’t for the same reason that Conroy allows it. In the absence of some law that requires recess for children, she’d probably have her children in the classroom all day. She believes there is never a time to show one’s instinctual behavior because she is so concerned with following society’s norms. Whenever the children of Yamacraw behaved incorrectly, she would punish them. She believes that “a child needed a beating…if he [i]s to respect authority, do his lessons, and grow up to make a contribution in his community” (164). She believes that she is shaping these children to follow the norms of the white society so they can succeed in it.
For similar reasons, she agrees with the concept of the superego. As noted previously, she follows the positive law to the tee. She believes that society was the guide for living – she conforms to society and never breaks from it. For example, when Conroy asks for permission to leave school grounds during recess, she objects saying, “you are required to be present on the school grounds at all times” (132). However, we know that she follows the rules to impress her white superiors. So, it does beg the question of whether she actually believes that society is where morality came from or if she simply follows the rules to keep the status quo. To the average spectator, however, she appears to think that societal norms equate to morality.