A New Future For Business - 773 Words

A New Future for Business? Rethinking Management Theory and Business Strategy Introduction In their 2010 article in Business Society, â€Å"A new Future for Business? Rethinking management Theory and Business Strategy†, authors Han, Kolk and Winn report the need for a fundamental re-think of the approach of academics toward business theory and strategies, with a focus on sustainable practices, and the ecological and societal consequences of business. This paper will explore the need to re-think the fundamental role of the businesses in opozarja, da morajo biznisi posvetiti vso pozornost na sustainable development in da making money ne sme biti primarni cilj. This paper will explore what has been done in last 25 years since the sustainable†¦show more content†¦4. The conventional approaches of value creation and growth focused business, are often blind to new approaches that bring substantial benefits by adopting greener and more socially responsible ways. Authors question whether public policy needs to be called upon, to better regulate business conduct with societal needs. Six academic articles: 1. In the article ‘Why making money is not enough’, Tata et al (2013) argue that maximizing the profit should not be the primary purpose of the businesses. Businesses need to understand sustainable development is more important and should be the primary driver. Authors highlight Tata Group as a good example as Tata primary purpose was to help people and not make money. Authors highlight what has changed in 20 years – after people realized fundamental changes will need to be made for a sustainable development. Today, some companies are investing into clean technology but we still haven’t done enough to reduce world population. Authors argue a critical need for economic, social and environmental issues to be considered with new business strategies and future technologies. 2. Andreas, Cooperman, Gifford Russell (eds), 2011 in the

How Steinbeck creates sympathy in Of Mice and Men

Steinbeck creates sympathy in Of Mice and Men. Discuss in relation to one character Of Mice and Men is a novella set on a ranch in the Northern western state of California written by Californian novelist John Steinbeck and then published in the late 1930’s. Set in the time of The Great Depression and The nationwide effective Wall Street Crash the book features characters all around who have depressing lives but focusing in on two paradoxical characters that are always juxtaposed to one another. Steinbeck has placed us with two characters that we are able to connect with, being able to sympathise with their dilemmas and problems as the two being long-time companions with a strong relationship but also being a priority to George as he†¦show more content†¦Steinbeck has Milton in the spotlight of a single parent trying to look after himself and Lennie which often leaves him releasing his stress onto Small in forms of anger and lashing out as you can see this early on in book when milton tells him how â€Å"Whatever we ain’t got, that’s wh at you want. God a’mighty, if I was alone I could live so easy†. Remembrance being one of the many problems Lennie struggles with it is not fair that he should be told how much he is holding someone back all the time as it is not his intentional fault, but as we delve deeper into the tale of the two ranch workers we soon learn that the barley bucker was no stranger to the use of selective hearing. This is proven various times in the novella but the one incident that keeps striking my mind as it brought a sense of deliberate delinquency for the rules was when he came back to their cabin with the puppy that slim had let him keep. After being told not to move it from the barn countless times by Milton these orders did not take place; Knowingly disobeying Milton’s orders small had went straight to his bed laid down faced towards the wall with the pup under his garments so that George could not see and even when George did confront him and tell him to take the dog bac k he lied about it at first until George had taken it off him by force.Show MoreRelatedHow Steinbeck creates sympathy for Candy in Of Mice and Men1208 Words   |  5 Pagesï » ¿How does Steinbeck create sympathy for Candy and his position on the ranch? Of Mice and Men is a novel written by John Steinbeck, set in America in the Great Depression of the 1930s. The main characters in the book are the clever, quick George, and his slow, child-like companion Lennie. They are itinerant workers who find work on a ranch in California’s Salinas Valley. There are many characters on the ranch, including Curley, Slim, and Crooks. However, the first ranch worker George and LennieRead MoreAnalysis Of John Steinbeck s Of Mice And Men 1181 Words   |  5 PagesQ) How does Steinbeck present the good and bad in Curley’s wife? Of mice and men is a novel written by John Steinbeck, which was published in 1937. This novel is set in the 1930’s America when women’s were being oppressed. This story informs the reader about Steinbeck’s experience in those particular times, as people with different races, disabilities and especially women were treated poorly and below their status. When Curley’s wife first appears in the book, she is described negatively by theRead More Of Mice and Men Essay1119 Words   |  5 PagesOf Mice and Men John Steinbeck’s novel ‘Of Mice and Men’ is one of those books which make you believe everything that takes place between the covers. Books like these always remain as classics, because of their very informative and believable stories. John Steinbeck especially excels in this, and therefore is the reason I have chosen this book to describe. ‘Of Mice and Men’, the title of the novel, originates from the poem ‘To a Mouse’, by Robert Burns. It means that no matter what youRead MoreA Comparison of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck1353 Words   |  6 PagesA Comparison of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck I will be comparing the novels ‘Frankenstein’ by Mary Shelley and ‘Of Mice and Men’ by John Steinbeck. I will focus on how the main outcasts in each book feel and how their emotions are presented and what effects this has on the reader. The novel Frankenstein is about a man Victor Frankenstein, who grew up in Geneva, Switzerland as an eldest son of a quite wealthy and happy family. HisRead MoreThe Character Crook from Steinbecks Novel Essay1222 Words   |  5 Pagesrelationships and vocabulary and language in relation to the social status of certain characters. There is an authorial judgement of Crooks and the introduction of Crooks into the novel. Also, Steinbeck ´s style is demonstrated very well. The descriptions in the extract reflect the style of Steinbeck as he lists Crooks ´ possessions in a simple way inorder for the reader to understand the bareness of Crooks ´ life. This includes a mauled copy of the California civil code for 1905. ´ This alongRead MoreNew Log : Of Mice And Men892 Words   |  4 PagesSeptember 30, 2015 New Log: Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck John Steinbeck creates an odd pair of men to assume the role of protagonist in his novel, Of Mice and Men. George, a small and quick-witted man, is the dominant personality. Lennie, his clumsy companion, is a character who displays a child-like demeanor and is often compared to an animal throughout the novel. The couple’s relationship closely resembles that which is often found between a father and son. Steinbeck later introduces Curley,Read MoreOf Mice and Men by John Steinbeck1081 Words   |  4 PagesIn Steinbeck’s ‘of mice and men’ set in 1930’s, both Crooks and Curley’s wife are defenseless victims of social prejudice which leads to their sadness and depression. Crooks, being a black man is discriminated and segregated towards by all the other ranchers â€Å"They play cards in there but I can’t play because I’m black- Crooks† whereas Curley’s wife being a woman is expected to stay at home and take care of the house â€Å"Why dont she get the hell back in the house where she belongs- Carlson†. FurthermoreRead MoreThe American Dream998 Words   |  4 PagesYet when society lacks these basic behaviors, the American Dream is unattainable. John Steinbeck’s classic novel, Of Mice and Men, incorporates various characters which create sympathy in readers, characters such as Lennie, Curley’s wife, and Crooks. First, an exploration of Lennie’s character with his struggle between mental and physical strength elicits an abundance of sympathy. Lennie Smalls is anything but small. Lennies last name is an oxymoron as he is a very large man. George describes hisRead MoreAnalysis Of The Novel Of Mice And Men 1530 Words   |  7 PagesSteinbeck’s novel was written and set in the 1930s. In the novella, of Mice and Men, the autor gave his characters The American Dream but the obsacles always seem to get in the way. Steinbeck show us the theme, American Dream, as it is in real life and demonstrates the effect of isolation through prejudice, broken dreams and the setting. Every character from the ranch is discriminated in Of Mice and Men. The book Of mice and men was written in a period when people with mental illness were treatedRead MoreOF MICE AND MEN1721 Words   |  7 Pagesï » ¿In the book Of Mice and Men, the single women that appeared in the book resented herself as an object. The statement Women today are more often treated by men as equals rather than objects can be true or false. A man that goes to Gentleman s Cubs every night is a different man that studies at Harvard Law School. A striper is going to be a different person than a CEO of a successful business. It’s all about how you present yourself. In Of Mice and Men, Curley s wife presents herself in a seductive

Fredric Jameson and the limits of postmodern theory Essay Example For Students

Fredric Jameson and the limits of postmodern theory Essay The impetus behind this paper has been the recent publication of Fredric Jamesons 1991 Welleck Lectures, The Seeds of Time. 1 As these lectures were delivered a decade after Jamesons initial attempts to map the terrain of postmodernity it appeared to me to provide an occasion to reflect upon the current status of Jamesons highly influential and much criticised theory of postmodernism as the cultural logic of late capitalism. It also enables me to return to, what I consider to be, one of the most troubling aspects of Jamesons writing on postmodernism, that is to say, the waning, to use Jamesons term, of the political imagination. As Jameson is probably the foremost Marxist theorist writing on postmodernism and one of the most influential of contemporary cultural critics, I find this paralysis of the political imagination in the face of postmodernism deeply problematic. As most of you are probably aware postmodernism is inherently paradoxical and playful. There is, suggests Jameson a kind of winner loses logic about it, the more one tries to define what is characteristically postmodern the less characteristic it turns out to be. Postmodernism, by definition resists definition. Theoretically, postmodernism can only theorise its own conditions of impossibility; with neither a fixed subject nor object there can be no theory of postmodernism as such. This paradoxicality is what Jameson now identifies as the antinomies of postmodernity, the aporia or theoretical impasses which mesmerise postmodern theory and unlike the older (modernist) discourse of dialectical contradiction remain unresolvable at a higher level of abstraction. Jameson identifies four fundamental antinomies of postmodernism: time and space, subject and object, nature and human nature, and finally the concept of Utopia. Today I will focus on just the first of these antinomies, what Jameson describes as the foundational antinomy of postmodernism, that is, time and space, and suggest that the failure to think beyond the antinomy is symptomatic of a more general failing in Jamesons theory as a whole. I shall also venture to suggest that a more dialectical understanding of temporality and spatiality may enable us to move beyond what Jameson sees as the limits of the postmodern. Before engaging with this debate, however, I will briefly recapitulate Jamesons original thesis and what I still consider to be the importance of his theoretical endeavour. Jamesons initial intervention in the postmodern debate, in a 1982 essay `The Politics of Theory,2 was primarily an attempt to map the ideological landscape of postmodernism, however, the article concluded on a characteristic Jamesonian note, insisting on `the need to grasp the present as history. Jameson, then, initially seemed to suggest the possibility of a way through the impasse of the two most influential strains of thought emerging at that time in relation to postmodernism. On the one hand, one encountered an uncritical celebration of the concept by the postmodernists themselves, and, on the other, the charge of cultural degeneracy was being levelled by more traditional critics and older modernists. We must avoid, argued Jameson, adopting either of these essentially moralising positions, and rather develop a more fully historical and dialectical analysis of the situation. Whether we like it or not there was a perception that culturally something had changed, we may disagree on what that change entails but the perception itself has a reality that must be accounted for. To repudiate such a cultural change was simply facile, to thoughtlessly celebrate it was complacent and corrupt; what was required was an assessment of this `new cultural production within the working hypothesis of a general modification of culture itself within the social restructuration of late capitalism as a system. It was this promise to historically situate postmodernism in relation to transformations in the capitalist system and the development of global multinational capital that, for many like myself who at once embraced aspects of postmodern theory whilst remaining critical of its often ambiguous political stance, was probably the single most significant aspect of Jamesons theory. At the same time, however, the precise nature of the relationship between postmodernism as a cultural phenomenon and late capitalism as a system was left somewhat under-theorised and, for myself at least, this has remained one of the most troubling aspects of Jamesons theory of postmodernity. That is to say, Jamesons notion of postmodernism as a cultural dominant, or the cultural logic of late capitalism. Very briefly there are three broad uses of the term, postmodernism or postmodernity, to have emerged in the 1980s: firstly, as a cultural category, deriving mainly from debates in architecture but also applicable to the other arts and literature. In this sense postmodernism is defined in relation to modernism and specifically the high modernism of the inter- war years. The second sense concerns the notion of epistemic or epochal transition has taken place. That is, Lyotards much heralded theory of the end of grand universalising narratives. This is also linked to the specifically cultural definition of postmodernism through the idea that the arts can no longer associated with a wider socio-historical project of human emancipation. The whole Enlightenment project, argued Lyotard, has come to an end, how can we still meaningfully speak of human progress and the rational control of the life world after Auschwitz and Stalins gulags. This seems to me to be a particularly spurious argument but perhaps we can return to it later. The third use of the term postmodernism has been to define, albeit rather imprecisely, some recent trends within French philosophy, particularly what have been called the new Philosophies. Again I remain rather unclear about what is imputedly postmodern here as many of the philosophical positions adopted are strikingly modernist in tone and substance. Jameson use of the term attempted to straddle or incorporate these debates within a more totalizing theory of postmodernity. That is, Jameson takes postmodernism to be a periodising concept, it is neither a narrowly cultural category designating specific features which distinguish postmodernism from modernism proper; nor a global category designating a new epoch and radical break with the past; rather, the term serves to `correlate the emergence of new formal features in culture with the emergence of a new type of social life and a new economic order. What has become known as late or multinational capitalism. I should, perhaps, point out that the problem for Marxists with the notion of postmodernism, particular in the second sense in which I defined it above, as a new economic and social order, is that at a stroke it abolishes Marxisms founding premise. That is to say, its historical emancipatory narrative. Marxism, along with psychoanalysis, is exemplary of the kind of grand narratives that postmodernism has, allegedly, delegitimated. The significance of the theory of late capitalism, as it was developed by the Ernest Mandel, therefore, cannot be understated in relation to Jamesons overall project. The theory of Late capitalism at once acknowledges a further development and restructuration of the capitalism on a global scale but does not posit a radical break with the past. Late capitalism, consumer society, the post-industrial society, what ever one wishes to call it, is still fundamentally the same economic system. There are two other important factors regarding late capitalism that will concern us later: firstly each successive expansion of the capitalist system entails a corresponding technological revolution. Secondly that changes in the social and economic spheres involve a change in the spatial paradigm. I will come back to both of these points below. Late or advanced capitalism therefore does not present us with a radically new system or life world; Baudrillards world of protean communication networks, simulacrum and hyperreality but rather a restructuration at higher levels of production of the same system. Postmodernism represents not so much a break with the past but a purer form of capitalism, a further intensification of the logic of capitalism, of commodification and reification. Indeed, argues Jameson, late capitalism marks the final colonisation of the last enclaves of resistance to commodification: the Third World, the Unconscious and the aesthetic. Unlike modernism, postmodernism does not attempt to refuse its status as a commodity, on the contrary it celebrates it. Postmodernism marks the final and complete incorporation of culture into the commodity system. Hence the slippage within Jamesons work between the two terms, postmodernism and late capitalism, as both come to signify the same object and to be equated with the totality itself. In Jamesons first extended attempt to specifically define the postmodern, he suggested, that postmodernism was characterised by a new experience of time and space. Our experience of temporality has been radically transformed and dislocated through the dual effects of the dissolution of the autonomous centred subject and the collapse of universal historical narratives. Drawing on Lacans work on schizophrenia and the Deleuzes notion of the nomadic or schizoid subject, Jameson argued that our sense of temporality was now radically disrupted and discontinuous. Without a coherent or unified sense of the subject it becomes increasingly difficult to speak of temporality in terms of memory, narrative and history. We are condemned to a perpetual present, the immediacy of seemingly random, unconnected signifiers. In short, Baudrillards world of simulacra and hyper-reality, a world without reference or fixed meaning. The positive side of this, if one can speak of it in such terms, is that individual isolated signifiers appear to become more real, shorn of any residual meaning they become more literal and material in their own right. We now experience moments of schizophrenic intensity rather than modernist duration, of aesthetic boredom and estrangement. The spatial corollary of this loss of temporality has been the pervasive flattening of space. Initially structuralism bracketed the referent and any notion of the referentiality of language, post-structural and postmodernist theory took this a step further and bracketed any sense of a signified. Words, signs, images no longer refer us to anything other than other words, signs, images in endless chains of signification. The Flu Epidemic F 1918 EssayBut one gets very little sense of how the one relates to the other. In terms of postmodern spatiality what Jameson wishes to emphasis is the alarming disjunction between the individuals perception of their own bodies and their immediate surroundings and the global environment that we now find ourselves within. Jameson finds this new spatiality particularly disorientating and suffocating, he writes, that postmodern space `involves the suppression of distance and the relentless saturation of any remaining voids and empty places, to the point where the postmodern body s now exposed to a perpetual barrage of immediacy from which all sheltering layers and intervening mediations have been removed. Postmodern spatiality is a realm of chaotic immediacy, in which our bodies are bereft of any spatial co-ordinates and are incapable of distantiation. Although, I would venture, that if Jameson paid more attention to the mediating role of institutional, local and n ational aspects of postmodernism he would find postmodern spatiality a little less bewildering. However, such concerns are ruled out, a priori, by Jamesons overly totalizing perspective, postmodern spatiality is, by definition, without mediation, I can elaborate on this later if anyone wishes. Quite simply, the problem with this is that it reinstates the position that Jameson and a number of other notable theorist were trying to get away from in the first place. The emphasis on spatial analysis in Jamesons work, and postmodernism generally, has emerged from a much wider debate within the social sciences and particularly from the work of Marxist geographers in the mid-70s. The new geographers challenged the privileged position accorded to temporality in social theory, insisting on the necessity of a more dynamic conception of space. Space had always been assigned a secondary position in relation to time; temporality is history, it is dynamic, the site of the dialectics, it is the potential for change and transformation, the historical possibility of revolution. Space, on the other hand, has always been seen as static and inert, space is simply given, a neutral category, an emptiness which is filled up with objects. The new geographers challenged the contemporary conceptions of space insisting that space is not given but produced. Socially produced space, spatiality, is not inert and static but is itself constitutive of social relations. Spatial relations and spatial processes are infact social relations taking a particular geographical form. Therefore, we cannot simply take space as a given but require what Henri Lefebvre called a unitary theory of space, a theory of space which brings together all its elements: physical space, mental space and social space. What Lefebvre calls the perceived, the conceived and the lived. For the postmodern and Marxist geographers spatiality is differential, conflictual and contradictory, the very antithesis of Jamesons conception of postmodern space. Whereas, originally the transformation of space was a constitutive feature of postmodernism by the late 80s it had become the constitutive feature of postmodernism. Modernism was seen as essentially temporal whereas postmodernism became spatial. Modernism was valorised as dynamic, the site of history, narrative and memory, in short, the potential for change. Postmodernism the site of pure immanence, immediacy, stasis and above all a disorientating and disempowering realm of space. Space is the place from which no meaningful politics can be conceived. Despite Jamesons ostensible intentions space he has once more become negatively defined in relation to time. In an interesting article on the politics of space and time, Doreen Massey has observed how Jamesons dichotomy of space and time is clearly linked to a second dichotomy, that of transcendence and immanence: temporality is ascribed transcendence and spatiality immanence. Faced with the horror of multiplicity of postmodern space Jameson can only vainly call in the wind for new forms of cognitive mapping. This is what I referred to a moment ago as Jamesons residual modernist sympathies, sympathies clearly indicated in the opening chapter of The Seeds of Time, `The Antinomies of Postmodernity with its echoes of Lukcs and the antinomies of bourgeois thought. Jameson comes out of an essenti ally literary and modernist tradition, his concern with spatiality has always been a concerned with what I called early conceived space. Jameson reads space as a text, and the semiotics of space its grammar and syntax. Jameson has no sense of space as either lived physical space or social space. Jamesons notion of cognitive mapping is founded upon a dialect of perception but it lacks any real sense of the physical and spatial practice that would follow from it. The flattening of space that Jameson identifies as characteristic of postmodernity is itself a symptom of his own theory which sees space simply in terms of representation. By ignoring what Lefebvre called the perceived and the lived Jameson has eradicated from space its differential, conflictual and above all contradictory character. Characteristics that we once more need to restore if any meaningful spatial politics are to be conceived. A reductionism at the level of theory rather than at the level of the experiential. Finally, therefore, I would suggest that what Jamesons theory lacks is any real sense of a spatio-temporal dialectic. That is to say, that modernism cannot simply be conceived in terms of a thematics of temporality any more than postmodernism can be conceived as completely spatial. I will conclude by suggesting a few ways in which this spatio-temporal dialectic can be thought of and perhaps offers a more theoretical satisfying position than Jamesons antinomies. In a recent article on modernity Peter Osborne has persuasively argued that what is unique about the temporality of modernity is its notion of contemporaneity. That is to say, modernity designates what is new, and what is new must be distinguished from even its most recent past, the modern will always be that which is new. In other words, modernity is a qualitative and not a chronological category. What interests me here is that the temporality of modernity can only be grasped as a dialectic of homogenisation (its contemporaneity) and differentiation (its distancing of itself from other historical epochs). Furthermore this dialectic can only be in relation to modernitys spatial relations; that is the geopolitics of modernity, the history of colonialism. Osborne writes: the concept of modernity was first universalized through the spatialization of its founding temporal difference, under colonialism; thereafter, the differential between itself and other times was reduced to a difference within a single temporal scale of progress, modernisation and development. As Althusser reminded us, different modes of production project different temporalities, the universalisation of the capitalist system could only take place through the eradication of distinct temporalities, that is to say the colonisation of all sites of pre-capitalist production. Now this in itself does not discredit Jamesons notion of postmodernism as the latest and purest form of capitalism. But it does begin to suggest a way of conceiving postmodernist temporality beyond the antinomy outlined above. Postmodernism does not represent a complete break with modernist temporality so much as an acceleration of this dialectic of homogenisation and differentiation, or what David Harvey has called time-space compression. 6 According to Harvey, `the history of capitalism has been characterised by the speed-up in the pace of life whilst simultaneously overcoming spatial barriers. What has happened with regard to postmodernism argues Harvey is that this speed-up has once more accelerated. That capitalism has embarked on one more fierce round `in the process of the annihilation of space through time that has always lain at the centre of capitalisms dynamic. But does not Harveys assertion that postmodernism is marked by an increased annihilation of space through time seem to be at odds with Jamesons assertion that space is now the experiential dominant? On the contrary, if space is increasingly eradicated through temporal acceleration then what spaces that remain become ever more important, ever more significant. `The superior command of space, writes Harvey, `becomes an even more important weapon in class-struggle. If this is the case, then one can begin to think of the ways in which political struggles now take place, as struggles over space. The recent emergence of road protesters as well as animal rights protests over the transportation of live stock are both essentially spatial conflicts. Questions of Third World development, famine and debt are also spatial in the sense that they concern the particular utilisation and control of space. I am not suggesting that all traditional forms of struggle be replaced by joining road protesters but I am suggesting, contrary to Jameson, that it is possible to envisage forms of political action within the postmodern spatial paradigm. Some of us may wish to link up these protests with more traditional or orthodox forms of political activity but we disregard them at our peril. We would also need to conceive of a form of spatial politics in terms of the way our urban environments construct and constrain our subjectivity and different forms of social life. The development of shopping centres may provide safe, although that is now seriously questionable, and clean environments to shop but they also privatise what may have previously been public space and our access to that space is now limited and policed. Furthermore, the steadily increasing privatisation of public means that there are fewer and fewer places to freely congregate in the centres of cities. In many cities, and Manchester does not appear to be one of them, the homeless in particular are being forced further and further out of sight and out of the commercial districts. I am not articulating a clearly thought out programme here, these are just a few of the areas though that I could conceive of a properly postmodern form of spatial politics emerging.

Caliban and Prospero Essay Example For Students

Caliban and Prospero Essay In our Drama lesson, we were given an extract from act one, scene two, from a Shakespeare play, called the Tempest. We had to make the audience side with Caliban or Prospero. We chose to make the audience side with Caliban. We did this with these communication skills: Facial expression, tone of voice, body movement, posture, muscle tension and gesture. This is what we did and why:  When Caliban says as wicked dew as eer my mother brushed with ravens feather from unwholesome fen drop on you both. A south-west blow on ye and blister you all oer. Caliban will be sat on the floor, this will make him seem weak and formulate the audience sympathising towards him, and it makes Caliban look nervous and terrified like Prospero is bullying him. Prospero is pacing around Caliban and trying to gain eye contact with him, which makes him seem strong and confident. When ever eye contact is gained between the pair, Caliban looks away quickly, covering his eyes with hands, or looking at the floor, which also shows he is weaker. When Prospero says for this, be sure, tonight thou shalt have cramps,  Side-stitches that shall pen thy breath up. Urchins shall for that vast night that they may work all exercise on thee. Thou shalt be pinched as thick as honey comb, each pinch more stinging than bees that made em. Prospero is walking around Caliban, who is still sat on the ground. He is speaking to Caliban like he is telling him off, as a father figure. Caliban has his eyes covered with his hands in a child-like manner to show that he is petrified and sees Prospero as a threat to him and feels intimidated by him. When Caliban says I must eat my dinner, he gets up and starts to walk away anxiously getting faster with his head down. Just before he leaves the stage he stop, and stands still for a moment to add tension, then he turns around, with the expression that he is thinking on his face. This islands mine, by Sycorax my mother. Caliban says in a reasoning tone of voice. Which thou takst from me. When thou camst first. Thou strokst me, and made much of me, wouldst give me. Water with berries int, and teach me how to name the bigger light, and how the lass that burn by day and night. And then I loved thee, and showed thee all the qualities othisle, the fresh springs, brine-pits, barren place and fertile. Cursed be I that did so! All the charms of Sycorax- toads, beetles, bats light on you! For I am all the subjects that you have, which first was mine own king: and here you sty me  In this hard rock, whiles you do keep from the rest othisle. Caliban is stood up, looking Prospero in the eye, but you can still tell he is nervous because he looks at the floor often, then building his confidence back up to look Prospero in the eye once again. Prospero looks disappointed in himself, but then, near the end of Calibans speech, Prospero starts to look angry. Caliban moved back and forth, and in circles in a nervous manner, meanwhile, Prospero stands still with his head held high, showing he is more confident than Caliban, and he is the stronger character. After about ten seconds, Prospero shouts Thou most lying slave, Caliban shies away from him as Prospero steps forwards. Prospero says whom stripes may move, not kindness! I have used thee, filth as thou art, with human care, and lodged thee in mine own cell, till thou didst seek to violate the honour of my child. Caliban is crouched down and Prospero walks over to him, at this point, Caliban will have no choice but to scatter backwards, giving Prospero the room he requests to march forwards, making him look stronger. Prosperos voice gets louder and scarier the more he talks. .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1 , .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1 .postImageUrl , .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1 , .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1:hover , .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1:visited , .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1:active { border:0!important; } .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1:active , .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1 .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .uaf9b8b98142a51f92f33c33c76822eb1:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Blood Brothers Argumentative EssayO ho, oho! Wouldt have been done Caliban says, as if he is pleading Prosperos forgiveness and not to be hurt. Thou didst prevent me. I had peopled else this isle with Calibans. Caliban says this like he feels guilty and did not know he was doing wrong which makes him appear that he regrets his performance.  Abhorred slave Prospero says sharply. Which any print of goodness wilt not take, being capable of all ill! I pitied thee, Prospero speaks down to Caliban like his feelings do not matter. Took pains to make thee speak, taught thee each hour.  One thing or other. When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning, but wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish, I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known. But thy vile race, though thou didst learn, had than int which good natures. Once again, Prospero treats Caliban with no respect, speaking to him like he his telling him off, Caliban holds his head in his hands. Could not abide to be with. Therefore wast thou deservedly confined into this rock, who hadst deserved more than a prison. Caliban slowly peeks through his hands and, wondering weather it would be a good idea to speak up, or keen quite, he speaks up. You taught me language, and my profit ont is, I know how to curse. The red plague rid you for learning me you language. Prospero interrupts Caliban. Hag-seed, hence! This makes Caliban jump and put his hands over his eyes once again.  Fetch us in fuel-and be quick, thourt best, to answer other business. Shrugst thou, Malice? If thou neglectst, or dost unwillingly what I command, Ill rack thee with old cramps, fill all thy bones with aches, make thee roar, that beasts shall tremble at thy din. No I pray thee! Caliban says in terror, he then turns to the audience and says I must obey. His art is of such power; it would control my dams god setebos, and make a vassal of him. He says this quietly and clearly to make the audience listen better and get them on his side.  So slave hence! Prospero shouts across the stage to Caliban. Caliban walks in a uneasy manner off the stage, as he walks past Prospero, he flinches like he things Prospero will harm him.  I think we completed this task well, Prospero and Caliban repeated their actions a lot, if I could do this task again, I would try to make them do different things to make it more appealing to the audience.