Forms of Power

                   
Bertrand Russell was a wellknown mathematician, writer, philosopher
and statesman. In his essay, forms of power, he talks of how power can
corrupt people when it gets out of control. The potentialities of
power for evil have become much in this century than ever before.
Nuclear fission, aeroplanes and space satellites have given great
rulers unlimited powers, and media like radio and television have
extended the power of rulers over their own subjects and influence
over others. In his book ‘Power’ from which this extract has been
taken, deals with the various aspects of power and authority.
Russell classifies power in the manner in which it influences
people—a- by direct physical power over his body eg-when an individual
is imprisoned or killed- (as when it happened at Tianenmen Square in
China or as happening in Libya) b- by rewards or punishments
(promotions in jobs or withholding increments) c-propaganda (as in
Anna Hazares hunger strike). According to Russell, man exercises all these kinds of power directly
over animals when he gets them to do work for him. In a satirical
manner, he mentions that the same is exemplified in humans
too—reference to Nazi power. He also generalizes when he talks of army
and police using physical power over body, economic organizations
using incentives and dismissals, schools, churches  influencing
opinions.According to Russell, Law is a set of rules set by the govt to deal
with its own citizens-eg- fines(when traffic rules are broken) are
meant to make the action undesirable not impossible. Law, therefore to
be effective, has to have favourable opinion and sentiment of the
public.( eg reopening of the jessica lal’s case)
Another distinction Russell makes is between traditional power(as in
royalty when power passes from father to son) and newly acquired
power( as in the case of dictators like quaddaffi or
castro)Traditional power according to Russell, has religious sanction
which says resistance is wicked-and therefore the holders of
traditional power feel secure in their rule- until misuse of it in
form of injustice – it will be overthrown( as was during the French
revolution or more recently that of Saddam Hussain.)
 The third kind of power classification is naked power  which could be
in the form of internal tyranny(Phomn Penh in Cambodia)or of foreign
conquest(the British rule in India)But conquest has had its own
consequences- (conquests by Alexander the great brought in cultural
changes)- therefore Russell says that conquest by military power has
helped the spread of civilisation(India is a prime example of this-)
When traditional power ends, it can be succeeded, not by naked power,
but by a revolutionary authority that has the acceptance of the
majority(Indian struggle for independence)
 Russell also makes the comment that the difference between
traditional, revolutionary and naked power is psychological in that
each can succeed only if they command general respect. Each kind would
fail and give way to the other when respect wanes.
Russell further classifies power depending on its usage- eg, he says
power is revolutionary when it is used by a large no. of people united
under a common roof as in a religion ( when Protestantism first began
or communism was introduced in China). Power , he says is naked when
it is exercised by a power loving individuals or groups(like dictators
like hosni mubarak of egypt) and rules overits subjects through fear
and submission, not active participation.
 Another interesting observation that Russell makes is that of power
of organisations (like those of political parties- congress/bjp/ dmk
etc) and power of individuals within the organisation(like that of
sonia gandhi/sushma swaraj/stalin etc) this is true in plutocracy
also(rule by the rich)where hereditary rules( dhirubhai’s sons took
over the company after their father) in power by organizations,
individuals rise to the top because they suited the need of that time,
eg Lenin was fit for the 19 century, but would not have succeeded in
today’s political scenario. When power is achieved through learning( as in medieval times Church
was all powerful as were the mutts and temples of hinduism) it is
strongest where ignorance is high and low where people are
educated(because they question the veracity of the dictums as happened
in the catholic church when abortions were banned)
It is accepted that growth of knowledge leads to growth of
civilisations-but it does not lend itself to power hungry individuals-
because no longer remains mysterious- and therefore does not lead to
awe and respect-the electrician and the scientist are treated on par
as long as they make our life comfortable. At the same time, Russell
opines that men of learning inspired respect, not so much for genuine
knowledge, but for supposedly magical powers, and since science has
disproved magic, so too the respect for learned men like priests,
fakirs or medicine-men.In the 20-21 century, the growth of large economic organisations(like
Infosys, Microsoft, Apple)has seen the emergence of of a new type of
powerful individual- the executive(Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ratan
tata) who take quick decisions make fast insight into character,
inspires respect in equals and subordinates equally, and  can be both
a tough negotiator and a diplomat, depending on the situation( Ratan
Tata in Singur in Bengal)
On the other hand in a democracy  are a group apart-they have to get
the support of their party first and then that of the general
public.The methodology they use for the above 2 situations are not
identical, and he has to be shrewd and smart to gain control over
both.  Sometimes the party ensures control over the public without the
magnetism of the individual as it happened in the case of Hitler(the
Nazi party).Again this is dependent on the needs of the time- in times
of war an impressive speaker , can, with the power of his words, gain
control of power, but would fail in times of peace when men of sound
judgement have power over the people in the situation.
 Successful dictators, according to Russell, are those who abolish
democracy like Lenin and Mussolini, who took advantage of the
instability in the country and established themselves. But ironically
after their death, their successors failed because the very character
by which the dictatorship succeeded, changed creating instability,
palace intrigue and sometimes reversion  to some different system( as
in Russia when Gorbachov had to step down in favour of Boris Yeltsin
who created a different kind of dictatorship).Russell explores a different kind of power exercise, as done by thosewho pull the strings backstage, much like puppeteers (as the case with
neira radia) they do not hanker for glory, but enjoy the unseen power
they have on the dictators- they could be secretaries to ministers, or
mistresses of kings  and as a rule this kind of power is undesirable
since it will not contribute to the promotion of general welfare.

OUR CASURINA TREE

                                   

The poem OUR CASUARINA TREE has been hailed by E.G.Thomas as"surely
the most remarkable poem ever written in  English by a foreigner." The
poetess laments over the loss of her siblings as their relationship is
elaborated upon, through their association with the old Casuarina tree
in the yard. The tree in turn at once symbolizes ones roots and
emblematizes the motherland. The determiner 'our' emphasizes the same.
The poetess exemplifies this connection in three stages.
The first part objectively describes the tree as a giant festooned
with the crimson flowers of a giant creeper that wraps around the
tree. The tree stands tall as it has survived the oppressive embraces
of the creeper. The creeper at once stands for the ravages of time,and
chain of events whose onslaught the Tree has overpowered.It may also
stand for cultural invasion.The tree has accepted the creeper(other
cultures) and at the same time has maintained its identity .The garden
echoes the songs of the birds and bees it gives abode to. While men
repose, (rest, ie in sleep)it is the rich natural diversity that sets
it apart from a humdrum existence. The trunk is 'rugged' and 'indented
with scars'. Nevertheless ,the base is strong,and the tree though
weathered stands tall.
As the poet opens her windows to witness sunrise at dawn, the tree is
the first to witness the same, with a statuesque baboon resting on the
crest, and the puny offsprings playing at the base. The tree at once
renders itself into the silent witness of history, and generations to
emerge from the base. The shadow of the tree falls against the
water-lilies in the tank making them look 'snow enmeshed'. The
reflection of the tree therefore endows others with splendor. The
koklilas and the grazing cattle represent moving life. Nevertheless,
it is the static nature of the all-encompassing tree that renders
these life forms dynamic.
The first two stanzas scrutinize the tree objectively. The following
two subjectively analyses its relation with the poetess' own state of
being. It connects the immortal tree to the mortal siblings, and
thereby renders them immortality.
First Paragraph: The author describes the tree that survived the
parasitic presence of a creeper that wound round and round about its
huge trunk, a trunk that was rugged with scars showing the reader that
the tree had withstood several storms. It had its share of hard times
but was still standing strong and supported not only itself but also
others of the ecosystem without expecting anything from them. The poet
gazes with awe at this tree exclaiming that no other tree could
survive such an onslaught over the years and still be so strong and
stable. It was the center of the ecosystem, impartially housing and
protecting all birds, which sang with unbridled joy on its boughs. At
all times of the day the tree was the center of all activity because
of the bees that would be perpetually be found buzzing there.
Second Paragraph:In this stanza, the poet describe the tree majesty by
looking out from her casement.She writes about the baboon who is
sitting alone on a higher bough and its off springs are playing on the
lower boughs. The kokilas are welcoming the day and the cows are
moving towards their pasture lazily.The white lilies looks like a mass
of snow in the pond under the shadow of the giant tree.
 Stanza 3;The tree, as magnificent as it is, is not dear for its
grandeur. It is dear for the nostalgic memories it brings back to the
poetess. In this regard, the tree bridges the gap between the past and
the present. It also overcomes time and space. Reminiscent of Arnold's
"Dover Beach", the sea breaking on the shingle beach produces a
rattling sound that sounds dirge-like. The dirge-like murmur is
symbolic of a universal wail, the still sad music of humanity. It is
unknown, yet it is universal. Of France or Italy, as the waves
reverberated with music, the poetess' vision of the tree fore grounded
the scenario.It can also take to mean that even when the poet was
abroad, her thoughts often went back to her native land and brought
back sweet memories.
Stanza 3 connects the previous ones in that she dedicates this
poem(Consecrate a lay- lay is an archaic word for song) for those who
now rest in eternal sleep(reference to her siblings who died young)
who were more dear to her than life itself and whose loss is not not
made bearable with the passage of time)Through  the poem she wishes to
immortalize the tree (the reference to Borrowdale—in Lake district
where Wordsworth spent many a happy hour and where his poem”Yew Tree”
was composed)
The first two stanzas scrutinize the tree objectively. The following
two subjectively analyses its relation with the poetess' own state of
being. It connects the immortal tree to the mortal siblings, and
thereby renders them immortal. For, their memories are deeply
entangled with the existence of the tree. The poem celebrates a Tree
that commemorates the departed souls. Thereby, the poetess bridges
mortality and immortality, the human and vegetative world, and time
and space. The Casuarina tree becomes to her an emblem of immortal
bliss. Padmini Sen Gupta asserts that the poet has proved its own last
line: "May love defend thee from oblivious curse." In the words of
K.R.S. Iyengar "the last stanza wills as it were the immortality of
the tree."

The German Refugee

-         by Bernard Malamud

The Gist:

Oskar Gassner, a Jewish German Refugee, settles in America after being forced out of Germany by the Nazis. Oskar is a fifty something year old German critic and journalist who’s intellectual value is compromised because he does not have a firm foundation of the English language which happens to be the common language in America. However, Oskar is hired by the Institute for Public Studies in New York.

Oskar had at one time studied English but could only manage to put together a fairly decent, if rather comical, English sentence. Hence, to sharpen his linguistic deficiency, he hires Martin Goldberg, an English tutor who charges a dollar an hour to guide him. Martin has a meek knowledge of the German language. The two are able to communicate and converse mostly in English with an occasional assist by Martin in Pigdin-German or Yiddish.

Oskar is scheduled to give a lecture a week in the fall term, and during the next spring, a course, in English translation, on “The Literature of the Weimar Republic”.

The Dilemma

Oskar is a German Scholar but has a faint English foundation whereas Martin is an English Scholar who has a faint German foundation. Oskar could opt for a more professional tutor but if he went to the five dollar a day professor, it might help his tongue but not his stomach. He would have no money left to eat with.

Oskar feels like a child, or worse, often a moron. He is left with himself unexpressed and his tongue hangs useless. The increasingly warm temperature just added fuel to the fire.

Oskar had attempted to commit suicide the first week after he had reached America and also warned Martin that if he failed to prepare for the lecture in October, he would take his life. This notion enforced Martin to take great caution in his measures. There was a deeper problem tormenting the refugee’s displacement, alienation, financial insecurity, being in a strange land without friends or a speak-able tongue and that was the fact that his mother-in-law was always an anti-Semitic. He also feared that his wife was secretly a Jew hater.

Happily Never After

Martin taught Oskar three times a week at four-thirty for an hour and a half. The lessons were divided into three parts: diction exercises and reading aloud, then grammar, because Oskar felt the necessity of it, and composition correction.

Oskar progressed for a while, for instance, when “sink” became “think”, he stopped calling himself “hopelezz”. Martin practically explained phonetics and the consonants of the English language by demonstrating with the movements of his own tongue.

With October fast approaching and the news of the Nazi’s devastating ways grew louder, Oskar deteriorated with every feeble attempt at the English lecture.

Martin kept Oskar’s chin up by accompanying him to short walks on the Drive that seemed to cheer him up but he felt his will was paralyzed. The whole lecture seemed to be clear in Oskar’s mind but the minute he wrote down a single word in English or German, the whole idea would be smashed. He grew in fear that he would die before he completed the lecture or wrote it so disgracefully he would wish for death.

Martin read Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass and shared his notes with Oskar, hoping to understand Whitman’s influence on German literature but Oskar pointed out that it wasn’t the love of death they had got from Whitman but it was most of all his feelings for Brudermensch, for Humanity. However, in the process of doing so, Oskar miraculously wrote down half of his lecture and eventually got inspired to complete it.

In October, Oskar finally gave his lecture and read out poetry from Whitman’s Leaves of Grass:

And I know that the spirit of God is the brother of

My own,

And that all the men ever born are also my brothers,

And the women my sisters and lovers,

And that a kelson of creation is love …

Oskar read it as though he believed it. His enunciation wasn’t at all bad – a few s’s th’s and he once said “bag” for “back”, but otherwise he did alright.

Two days later, Oskar was found dead in his apartment. He had signed off all of his possessions to Martin Goldberg. The top of the drawer of Oskar’s desk laid a thin packet of letters from his wife and an airmail letter of recent date from his anti-Semitic mother-in-law. She wrote that Oskar’s wife had, against her mother’s fervent plea and anguish, converted to Judaism. One night the Nazis appeared and along with other Jews, dragged her to a small border town in conquered Poland where she was rumored to have been shot in the head.

The Trumpet Club

                                      

It indicates the growing popularity of club life in the early years of
the 18century.the word trumpet is probably used in connection with the
idiom ”to blow one’s trumpet” meaning to boast; and each member of the
trumpet club does just that.The satirical essay speaks of how the
narrator chose to relax before retiring for the night.
After a hard days work, the narrator  made it his custom to spend the
evenings in the company of men where he did not have to exercise his
mind much-their talk lulled him to sleep( meaning it was boring and
repetitive) the number of members had come down from the original 15
to 5- and where he was considered the most learned(Intelligent) the
narrator then gives a pen sketch of the members- the oldest is named
Sir Jeffery Notch(notch means to make a score- reference to sports)
who lost all his wealth igambling on hounds(racing dogs) horses and
gaming cocks.  The next member is Major Matchlock (matchlock is a kind
of gun) who had participated in all the civil wars and his talk
bordered on the same. His greatest heroic deed was when London workers
pushed him off his horse during a demonstration (strike). The third
member is referred to as Dick Reptile (a kind of snake that is slow
and sluggish). He speaks little, laughs at all the jokes. He would
bring with his nephew, who would sit silent, or even if he passed a
comment or laughed at the jokes, would be told by his uncle ‘you young
men us fools, but we old men know you are’’ (fools). The next member
is not referred to by name- his only claim to fame was that he knew
the notorious Jack Ogle well and would tell stories of his adventures.
The 5 member was the narrator himself who was regarded as a man of
letters(Intelligent and well educated) He w as referred to by the
members as ‘scholar’ ‘philosopher’.
 The members met every evening at 6 pm and dispersed at 10pm, and the
conversation was the same as it was for the past few years.   On his
way home, the narrator would reflect  with himself, the talkative
nature of old men who would spin the same yarn(meaning repeat the same
incidents over and over again). This made him also think that when a
young man began to talk over a particular incident, over a period of
time, the story would get elongated so long as to compete with the
Canterbury Tales(A number of long stories to have been told by a band
of pilgrims on their way to Canterbury, a place sacred for the tomb of
St. Thomas Becket)
 One way to avoid getting into this pitfall, acc. To the narrator, is
to store up knowledge and observation in our youth and use and recall
it in our declining (old age) years. This can make a man ,in his old
age, a man of wisdom comparable to that of Nestor( a character in the
Iliad known for his wisdom and eloquence)