Cognitive theory of Jean Piaget four stages

Cognitive theory of Jean Piaget four stages Cognitive theory of Jean Piaget includes four stages of development that children move through during which the explanatory behaviors of infants transform into the abstract, logical intelligence of adulthood. There are three important specific characteristics of Piagets theory of which the first one is being a general theory, that is, cognitions all aspects undergo a similar course of change. Another characteristic is that children move through the stages in an invariant sequence. Piaget believed that there is a same order that children follow. Third, the stages are universal. Stages in cognitive theory assume the theory to include all children everywhere (Berk, 2003). Biological concepts are used in a limited way in Piagets theory. However, he stated the importance of genetic and environmental factors on the way that children move through the stages (Crain, 2005). He emphasized that the speed of children while passing those stages is affected by differences in genetic and environmen tal factors. Jean Piaget used the term scheme while explaining human beings organized way of making sense of experience (Mark, 1969). Traill (2008) explains that the term scheme used by Piaget is different from peoples everyday usage of scheme. The term can be any pattern for exploring and learning from the environment and it has three different intellectual structures. Piaget calls first intellectual structures to emerge as behavioral schemes, ones that appear after 2 years as symbolic schemes, and structures that appear after 7 years as operational schemes (Piaget, 1972, as cited in Traill 2008). For instance, dropping scheme of an 8 month old baby and a 25 months of will not be the same, as sooner it will become more deliberate and creative. Toddlers, different from infants, begin to think before acting and Piaget identifies that transition from sensorimotor to cognitive approach to the world which depends on mental representations. (Piaget, 1926, as cited in Berk 2003) Images and concepts are the two powerful mental representations. Especially, the shift from sensorimotor to cognitive approach is accounted for two processes; adaptation, consisting assimilation and accommodation, and organization. Interpretation of new structures into already existing schemes is called as assimilation and modification of existing schemes into adaptation of new experiences is called as accommodation. Cognitive adaptation aims to adjust to the environment and is a result of the equilibrium between assimilation and accommodation (Block, 1982). While trying to grasp an object, a baby is experiencing the assimilation process, while removing an obstacle and grasping an object, a baby now accommodates the scheme (Crain, 2005). During the organization process more complex intellectual structures are combined with existing schemes by children. For instance, after the baby experienced and covered dropping movement, then he/she will relate it with throwing movement as well as understanding the concepts of near and far (Berk, 2003). The Sensorimotor Stage (Birth to 2 Years) Jean Piaget observed his children during their developmental period and constructs the stages based on his observations. His books mostly involve many examples from his dialogues and interactions with his children. The sensorimotor stage consists of six substages. (Santrock, 2004) That stage starts with the use of reflexes from birth to 1 month. Newborn reflexes take important place in sensorimotor stage. According to Piaget inborn reflexes are consisted from first schemes. He states that as children use inborn reflexes and experience assimilation, they desire to put them to active use (Crain, 2005). After one month, children begin to repeat their chance behaviors and primary circular reactions period (one to four months) starts. A baby experiences the thumb sucking by bringing her hand to her mouth by a chance, when the hand falls she wants to get it back and experiences many failures until she gets it back (Crain, 2005). At that example the child organizes the hand movement and sucking which is a kind of circular reaction. Piaget also states that children at that period indicate the first efforts at imitation (Berk, 2003). The next substage is secondary circular reactions and is observed between fourth and eighth months. Infants start to experience motor achievements that encourage them to play attention to their environment. Infants begin to get enjoyment from the response of the environment to their attempts and they repeat their movements that get reaction from their surrounding (Santrock, 2004). Coordination of secondary schemes substage takes place during eight to twelve months. At this stage infants begin to coordinate tow or more actions to achieve simple objectives. In addition with an intentional purpose, babies try to imitate behaviors after watching a person. One may be able to observe a baby at this stage trying to stir with a spoon. In addition, a baby may begin to cry when she sees her mother wearing her coat in order to stop her mother leaving (Berk, 2003). In substage 5, tertiary circular reactions (twelve to eighteen months), children are interested with different outcomes. Piaget had observed one of his children hitting on a table at different rates in order to listen different sounds that he creates (Crain, 2005). It should be noted that all experiences are results of childrens intrinsic curiosity about the environment around them that Piaget emphasizes within his cognitive development theory. The last substage of the sensorimotor period is named as beginnings of thought or internalization of schemes lasting from eighteen to twenty months. During that substage children have the capacity to remember the behaviors that are not present (deferred imitation). Their efforts on imitation also indicate progress and they experiment with actions inside their heads. Besides, children can be observed to engage in make-believe play during that period (Santrock, 2004). Object Permanence: Piaget and many researchers concluded that infants appreciate concepts of permanence objects. Up to four months, children do not make any attempt to an object leaving in front of their eyes. During secondary circular reactions stage children are more able to explore their surrounding and they have a better sense of permanence of objects. At stage four children have the ability to find the hidden objects. If an adult takes a toy behind a box, the baby will look at the behind of the box and find the toy. During the stages five and six children are able to follow displacements and follow invisible shifts (Crain, 2005). Beginnings of Categorization: Before the capability of mental representation children are not able to categorize objects. During the first year of their life, children experience perceptual categorization. For example they can categorize the legs of an animal. Conceptual categorization begins with the end of first year; they are now able to categorize similar characteristics and behaviors. Active categorization period starts with the beginning of the second year. It is stated that sorting objects into two classes can be observed in eighteen months babies. In the second year babies can group two different kinds of objects without grasping them (Berk, 2003). When the observed milestones of research and the description of substages of Piaget are compared from birth to two years, both similarities and differences are seen. There are points that seem to occur earlier than Piaget accepted such as categorization, deferred imitation, and analogical problem solving. Those differences are explained differently from many researchers. Some of the surveys indicate that some children born with different intellectual capacities and some of them with a set off limits which causes those differences. The latter argue the theory of Piaget in terms of biological considerations. The Preoperational Stage (2 to 7 Years) Preoperational stage is lasting from two to seven ages in which the child is more capable while dealing with the environment. Although the reasoning of child is still unsystematic and illogical, that is the period that children begin to use symbols and rapidly develop representation. One of the important symbols that indicate increase during that period is language (Santrock, 2004). Piaget believed that experience of internal images occurs before labeling words and he did not take language as an important tool in cognitive development of children. Berk (2003) argues that Piaget had misadjusted the role of language in early intellectual development. She proposes that conceptual abilities of children are highly affected from the dialogues of children with adults. Moreover, there are many psychologists that believe as children develop their language ability, they begin to think more logically. Children experience transductive reasoning during that stage which means shifting from one particular to another. Children place two unrelated situations into the same case as if they have a relationship. One of Piagets children had concluded that she hadnt had her nap yet so it wasnt afternoon (Piaget, 1924). Piaget (1924) explains that statement as an example of transductive reasoning, because the child did not catch the understanding that afternoons include many different events and having nap is only one of them. An important milestone of the increase in mental representation is make-believe play during preoperational stage. The differences in make-believe play between sensorimotor and preoperational stage can be clearly observed. By the middle of preoperational stage make-believe play of children indicate real life conditions. In addition, by preoperational stage children begin to engage in sociodramatic play, they coordinate variety of roles and story lines during their play. One of the criticized points of cognitive theory of Piaget is based on the belief of Piaget that play reflects childrens cognitive and social skills, however there are many recent studies indicating the contribution of play on those skills. Especially during sociodramatic play, children interact with their peers longer and they are more cooperative. Many psychologists believed the role of strengthening of make believe play on a wide range of mental abilities and logical reasoning (Berk, 2003). Egocentrism: Piaget stated that children look at their surrounding from their own viewpoint and they ignore perspectives of others. Three-mountains study is one of the famous observations of Piaget explaining egocentric behavior of children at preoperational stage. He had used a model of three mountains and taken a child for a walk around the model in order to give opportunity for the child to look at the model from different view. Piaget had placed the child from one point of the model and placed a toy to another place. The child had been asked what he/she saw while looking at the model and what the toy would be seen while looking at it. All the children could correctly explain what they were seeing, however children at preoperational stage gave the same answer with their own view (Crain, 2005). Studies emphasize on the relation between egocentrism and social communication. Children at preoperational stage, according to Piaget, fail to recognize the needs of their peers during verbal interaction (Rubin, 1973). As they look only from their own view, they are able to understand view of the person interacting with them. They think that they can be seen from everywhere, everybody see and hear them. An adult may observe a child at this period telling that nobody could see him/her while closing his/her eyes with hands. Animism: Piaget (1951) proposes that the child recognizes no limits between himself and the external world and it is expected that the child would see many nonliving and non acting things as living and conscious and he explains this phenomenon as animism. In his book The Childs Conception of World, 1951, he identifies the reason for him to use the term animisim. He accepts that animism was term used for primitive human beings and responds the criticisms by telling that he had used that term as a generic term and emphasizing on the different types of animism in psychological origins (Piaget, 1951). Children at preoperational stage have a belief that objects are alive because they move and grow. For example, a child may tell that there are not any cars on the road, because they are sleeping. Piaget described animism inside four stages. Initially children accepted useful things as living. At this first stage broken or damaged objects were not alive for them. At the second stage, moving objects, whether are moved by an external factor or by themselves, were considered as alive. In stage three, to be categorized as living, things should move by themselves. Lastly, at the fourth stage, adults know that plants and animals are living things only (Moriarty, 2005). Irreversibility: Going through a series of steps and after changing direction is difficult for children at preoperational stage. Another well known experiment of Piaget indicates that problem in a way that there are children shown 16 boxes, 6 of which are yellow and 10 of which are red. When children are asked whether red boxes are more or boxes, children at this stage responds as red boxes and fails to be aware of that both yellow and red boxes are boxes. In his book The Childs Conception of World, 1951, Piaget gives examples about irreversibility. There are dialogues indicating their inability such as, asking a child about her sister, the child responds that she has a sister named A, then Piaget asks the child whether A has a sister or not, the child responds that A has not a sister. (Piaget, 1951) Inability to Conserve: Piaget propounds preoperational childs lack of conservation by applying experiments of liquids and number. He shows two same size glasses to the children and fulls the glasses with water. He asks children which of the water was more. All the children respond that they were equal in amount. Then he puts the water in one of the glasses into a different size glass (wider or taller) and repeats his question. Children at preoperational stage tell that they are now different. They have not the capability to perceive that certain physical features of objects remain same, even their physical appearance changes. Based on experiments of Piaget, at the beginning of seven children begin to give the correct answer to the conservation tests. Before that age children indicates at conservation but not totally achieve it. They give answers like one is more because it is taller and then change their answers the other one is more because it is wider. Besides, irreversibility of the child can be concluded based on the conservation of liquid experiment. The child cannot understand the end result as a reverse of the original one. Jean Piaget also had thought about the failures of children from the linguistic point. Terms such as taller, more, wider takes time to be understood. He suggests ways to overcome that problem and tells adults to apply experiments by using different sentences and establishing questions by using different words within a particular case. Piaget experimented conservation of children also with using number.

Gender, Hierarchy and Leadership Essay

Although women’s status has improved remarkably in the 20th century in many societies, women continue to lack access to power and leadership compared with men. This issue reviews research and theory concerning women’s leadership. The articles included in the issue provide evidence of bias in the evaluation of women, discuss effects of gender stereotypes on women’s influence and leadership behaviors, and evaluate strategies for change. This introductory article provides a brief summary of changes in women’s status and power in employment and education and the absence of change at the upper echelons of power in organizations. Also included is an outline of the contributions of the other articles in the issue. It is an exciting period for scholars who study how gender affects leadership: The presence of greater numbers of women in positions of power has produced new opportunities to observe female leaders along with male leaders. There has been an increase in the numbers of women in positions of public leadership, including highly visible positions. Of course, focusing on women who occupy such leadership positions should not cause us to forget that women have always exercised leadership, particularly in families and throughout communities. However, until recently, women were extremely rare in major positions of public leadership. Now women are in a small minority in such roles, but present. Political leadership illustrates this trend: In history only 42 women have ever served as presidents or prime ministers, and 25 of those have come to office in the 1990s (Adler, 1999). Almost all of the women who have attained top positions in corporations around the world have done so in the 1990s. Public interest in women’s potential as leaders is fueled by high-profile women serving in powerful positions; Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and former Secretary of State Madeline Albright are just three recent examples from the United States. Many of the newspaper and magazine articles written about these and other female leaders have a positive tone (e.g., Dobbs, 1999; â€Å"A Practical Judicial Eye,† 2000). The idea that women might hold such positions and the suspicion that they might exercise power somewhat differently than men no longer seems as alarming to people as in the past. Indeed, people are receptive to the idea that different might be better or at least not worse than what the nation experiences now. In response to the Gallup Poll’s question, â€Å"Do you think that this country would be governed better or worse if more women were in political office?† 57% of the respondents in the United States chose the response â€Å"better,† with greater endorsement by women (62%) than men (51%; Gallup, 1995). Only 17% of the respondents indicated that such a change would worsen government. The excitement about the presence of just a few women in powerful positions raises the question of why, with women’s roles changing so dramatically in the last decade, the numbers of women in these positions are so small. Indeed, the concept of the glass ceiling was introduced by the Wall Street Journal to account for this disjunction (â€Å"The Corporate Woman,† 1986) and has since been acknowledged by journalists and the public as an invisible but powerful barrier that allows women to advance only to a certain level. Evidence supports the glass ceiling metaphor. By some yardsticks, the United States and other advanced industrial societies appear to be approaching gender equality. In the United States, women have entered the paid labor force in large numbers and now constitute 47% of workers (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001b). Whereas in 1972 only 18% of managers were female, the proportion of women has steadily increased over time (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1982) and currently women make up 45% of managers and administrators (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2001a). In education, women possess 51% of all bachelor’s degrees that have been awarded (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). Since 1981– 82, more of these degrees have gone to women than men, with women currently receiving 56% (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Women also possess 45% of the advanced degrees that have been awarded (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000) and currently earn 42% of PhDs and 43% of professional degrees (e.g., those in law or medicine; Morgan, 2001). Although these aggregate statistics on labor force participation and education suggest gender equality, the distributions of men and women in elite leadership positions tell quite a different story. To borrow former President Clinton’s phrase, the tops of managerial and governmental hierarchies do not â€Å"look like America.† In Fortune 500 companies, women constitute only 4% of the top officers, 3% of the most highly paid officers, and 0.4% of CEOs (Catalyst, 2000). In U.S. politics, only 13% of senators, 14% of congressional representatives, and 10% of state governors are women (Center for the American Woman and Politics, 2001). In the military, women make up 2% of the top officers (U.S. Department of Defense, 1998). Although about 30% of lawyers are women, women make up only 15% of law firm partners and 5% of managing partners in large firms (Rhode, 2001). In contrast to the changes in women’s education, labor force participation, and employment as managers, little change has occurred in terms of placing women in the most powerful leadership positions. The lack of women in powerful positions used to be explained by many as a â€Å"pipeline problem,† that is, the interpretation that women with the appropriate education and background were not available. Even though the pipeline explanation remains popular among male CEOs (Ragins, Townsend, & Mattis, 1998), its plausibility has been eroded by the dramatic increases in women’s employment as managers. Because the pipeline is full of women, this idea has given way to the glass ceiling in the popular imagination. The glass ceiling is a metaphor for prejudice and discrimination. To the extent that people are prejudiced against women as leaders and potential leaders, this prejudice would manifest itself in many ways and have multiple effects. Prejudice can take subtle or blatant forms and can be held by employers, customers, voters, and even by the targets of prejudice themselves. Prejudice against women as leaders and potential leaders would interfere with women’s ability to gain authority and exercise influence and would produce discrimination when it is translated into personnel decisions within organizations and political structures. Because social psychologists have long studied prejudice and industrial/organizational psychologists have studied managerial roles and organizational processes, the stage is set in these fields for understanding the rarity of women in powerful positions. The authors of the articles in this issue have all made important contributions to this developing kn owledge. Organization of the Issue Bias in the Evaluation of Women Leaders The articles in the first section of the issue present evidence of biased evaluation of women’s competence and potential for leadership, showing that across a wide variety of settings and contexts, women are presumed to be less competent than men and less worthy to hold leadership positions. In the first article of the section, Cecilia L. Ridgeway gives an overview of expectations states theory and proposes that gender differences in influence and leadership occur because people presume that men are more competent and legitimate as leaders than women are. These beliefs foster hierarchical patterns of social interaction through which men exert more influence and exercise more leadership. In support of the theory, Ridgeway reviews research examining gender differences in behavior in taskoriented groups and identifies conditions that modify these differences. In the section’s second article, Madeline E. Heilman reviews research on leadership in organizations, showing that as a consequence of biases against women, people devalue the work of female managers. When the value of that work is impossible to deny, people tend to attribute it to external factors rather than the women’s competence. Finally, when external attributions cannot be made, people dislike and reject successful female managers. Virginia E. Schein’s article, the third in the section, reviews cross-cultural research on bias against female leaders. Studies in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, China, and Japan all reveal that men are perceived to be more qualified as managers than women are, especially by men. In addition, Schein identifies changes in the perception of management over time and discusses why men from different countries with varying political, economic, and social conditions all continue to view women as less competent and suited to leadership than men. In the section’s fourth article, Jennifer Boldry, Wendy Wood, and Deborah A. Kashy describe an empirical study that revealed gender biases against women in a military setting. The authors report that both male and female cadets considered men to have more leadership ability and women to have more character (e.g., integrity, lack of selfishness) than the other sex, perceptions that are congruent with traditional gender stereotypes. Unfortunately for women’s potential in the military, cadets’ success in the corps was best predicted by perceived leadership ability, not perceived character, suggesting that a person’s success in the military depends on conforming to a masculine model of leadership. In the final article in this section, Monica Biernat and Kathleen Fuegen report two new empirical studies documenting shifting standards in evaluating women and men in work and academic settings. Presenting further evidence of bias against women, their findings revealed that female study participants set harsher standards for hiring female than male applicants and were less likely to hire women than men. In contrast to other articles in this issue showing greater gender bias by males than females, male study participants did not show gender biases in their hiring decisions. Gender Effects on Social Influence and Hireability The authors in the issue’s second section provide evidence showing that, in order to be influential, women must combine agentic qualities, such as competence and directiveness, with communal qualities, such as warmth and friendliness. In the first article of the section, Linda L. Carli reviews the literature on gender effects on social influence, reporting that males exert greater influence over others than females do. She argues that this occurs for two reasons. First, females are generally presumed to be less competent than males and therefore less credible as influence agents. Second, when women are perceived to be as competent as men, they are often seen as violating prescriptive gender role norms that require women to be communal. As a result, people, especially males, often dislike highly competent women and reject their contributions. In the section’s second article, Laurie A. Rudman and Peter Glick report on an empirical study that further explores pressures on female job applicants to be both agentic and communal. Results showed that agentic men were considered more socially skilled than agentic women. Moreover, agentic male applicants were considered more hireable than agentic female applicants for jobs requiring both agentic and communal skills. Women who possessed both agentic and communal qualities, however, were considered to be as hireable as their male counterparts, regardless of job requirements. In the third article in this section, Felicia Pratto and Penelope Espinoza discuss the importance of the interaction of race and gender in affecting discrimination in hiring. They report the results of two empirical studies showing that study participants preferred to hire White male job applicants over White female applicants for jobs that enhance group-based hierarchy but did not prefer Black and Hispanic male applicants over Black and Hispanic women for those same jobs. Instead, Blacks and Hispanics were generally more often selected for jobs that attenuated group-based hierarchy than Whites were. Characteristics of Women’s Leadership Leadership has traditionally been construed as a masculine enterprise with special challenges and pitfalls for women. This perception raises the very interesting question of how women lead. The two articles in the issue’s third section discuss current research on gender differences and similarities in the ways men and women perceive themselves as leaders and engage in leadership. In the first of these articles, Alice H. Eagly and Mary C. Johannesen-Schmidt examine the controversy in the popular and academic literatures about whether there are gender differences in leadership style. These authors review the empirical literature on gender differences in leadership style, including recent research on transformational and transactional leadership. They conclude that, although male and female leaders are quite similar in a number of ways, on average they do behave somewhat differently. In the section’s second article, Hilary M. Lips reports an empirical investigation of the ways in which samples of college students from Virginia and Puerto Rico perceive themselves as future leaders. Her findings indicate that both men and women expect to lead in domains that are relatively traditional for their gender— for example, men in business and women in education. Compared with men, women also expect more difficulties in their personal relationships and other negative consequences as a result of their leadership. Strategies for Change The articles in the first three sections of this issue present evidence of gender inequalities in leadership and influence and propose theoretical explanations for these inequalities. This research helps clarify why women are underrepresented in positions of power and provides a framework for identifying possible strategies for reducing gender discrimination. In the final section of this issue, Janice D. Yoder focuses on strategies that can be used to increase women’s emergence and effectiveness as leaders. In particular, she endorses a wide range of organizational strategies for increasing women’s leadership. She also describes individual approaches that women can use to reduce resistance to their leadership but argues that individual approaches, because they demand more of women than men, are inherently unfair. Importance of the Effects of Gender on Hierarchy and Leadership Scholarship on gender has addressed a range of issues in past decades, with early work concentrating on gender stereotypes and sex-differentiated personality traits. An underlying goal of this work was to understand the status of women in society and foster favorable change in women’s status. Although women’s status has risen substantially in the 20th century in many societies, women’s subordination remains apparent in their lack of access to positions of power. Earlier researchers rarely addressed this issue directly. If women are ever to achieve a status equivalent to that of men, however, they will have to participate equally in those contexts where the most important and far-reaching decisions are made. Decision making with major impact on what is valued in societies and how resources are allocated is surely not shared equally by citizens, but concentrated among people who hold positions of power in organizations and governments. Women must be present in sizeable numbers in these settings and must perform effectively in order to produce a balance between male and female power. The research and theory considered in this issue help us understand why power has remained unequally allocated between the sexes and how greater equality can be achieved. References Adler, N. J. (1999). Global leaders: Women of influence. In G. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 239–261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Catalyst. (2000). Census of women corporate officers and top earners. New York: Catalyst. Center for the American Woman and Politics. (2001). Fact sheet [On-line]. New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University. Available: http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/ ~cawp/pdf/elective.pdf The corporate woman: A special report. (1986, March 24). Wall Street Journal, 32-page supp. Dobbs, M. (1999, May 2). Becoming Madeline Albright. Washington Post Magazine, p. W11. Gallup, G., Jr. (1995). The Gallup poll. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources. Morgan, F. B. (2001). Degrees and other awards conferred by Title IV participating, degree-granting institutions: 1997–98 [On-line]. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2001/quarterly/spring/q5_3.html A practical judicial eye; O’Connor deserves one more first—Ms. Chief Justice. (2000, June 12). The Arizona Republic, p. B6. Ragins, B. R., Townsend, B., & Mattis, M. (1998). Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling. Academy of Management Executive, 12, 28–42. Rhode, D. (2001). The unfinished agenda: Women and the legal profession. Chicago: American Bar Association, Commission on Women in the Profession. U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2000). Current population reports: Educational attainment in the United States: March 2000. Table 1: Educational attainment of the population 15 years and over, by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin [On-line]. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/ socdemo/education/p20-536/tab01.txt U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1982). Labor force statistics derived from the current population survey: A databook (Vol. 1). Bulletin 2096. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2001a). Annual average tables from the January 2001 issue of Employment and Earnings. Table 11: Employed persons by detailed occupation, sex, race, and Hispanic origin [On-line]. Available: http://www.bls.gov/cpsaatab.htm U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2001b). News: The employment situation: May 2001. Table A-1: Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age [On-line]. Available: http://www. bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf U.S. Department of Defense. (1998). Active duty military personnel by service by rank/grade (for September 30, 1997) [On-line]. Available: http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/miltop.htm U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Digest of educational statistics [On-line]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/digest/index.html

“Twelfth Night” Review

Shakespeare’s twelfth night is inevitably marked with deep social insight. The differences in power, the paltry of gender and social identity are all equally put into question in this seemingly light hearted comedy. The start of the play introduces us to the motive of our main character, Olivia and casts light unto the main problem that has to be resolved through the course of this play; the separation of twin brother and sister, who if not for their infallible discriminator â€Å"sex† would just as easily be put in each other’s shoes without triggering any significant event to throw the balance of our characters into confusion. Indeed from the get-go the fact that Viola’s ‘gender-switch’ and Sebastian’s ‘character-switch’ did not shock anyone out of their sealed matrimonial bliss or the attainment of such a prospect seems rather foolhardy to miss and in considering the Bard’s infamous dramatic puppetry, they are such issues as we have to get to the bottom of, scraping a glimpse, if not an epiphany that would resurrect the act’s glamour from it’s ancient casket. Assuredly, Sebastian, on receiving the news of his sister’s disappearance falls into the supposition that she is dead, and with little remorse kicks off with his pal Antonio to the arms of freedom, where no embrace shall feel the smother of bondage, where it between the closest relatives even. His sister, though, rises to the occasion and with undying hope declares her brother’s survival, and her quest to bring his authority into this expectation. Here, we see where the pall of gender lies. Though Sebastian and Viola are not of any distinguishing feature that might divide the cast’s opinions about their identity, Sebastian for one, thinks his sister is dead. This reflects the attitude of society towards the weaker sex, who cannot be expected to bring fortune to their aid much less entertain the notion of keeping life. Men, however, are the most capable of doing such and so, and in following this principle Viola disguises herself in manly attire and takes such a w orthy title in hand or in name†¦ The fact is, she turned man to suit a position she could not fill as a woman. Early on, we can thus put our hands on which of the twins was the reliable one in this sibling relationship. Not to be hard on Sebastian, the reason for his inaversion to Viola’s advances towards him might just be his need for someone to replace what he has lost in his sister. More so, he doesn’t protest to Olivia even when he finds out she was bearing feelings for his sister; doesn’t shrink from a quarrel even when it rams him face-on. A man: through and through†¦ But when talking about Olivia, it is difficult to sympathize with what she has been through. She bore feeling for a poorer man and rejected Duke for all he was just to conform to the society’s value of male dominance over women. To neglect all what she has been blessed with, taking for granted the responsibility and ingrature, that comes along it and divert in affection to a random male who’s quality, in her flawless judgment, was much the same as her brother’s. Again, none of the characters seem to protest to the predicament they were forced into in this play which seriously makes me question: what were ye looking to get from all yer blunders? Ay, the proposition is nigh. But all our characters just seem to get pulled into their quarters much as the position they put themselves into dictate in term and sequence. A good example to take would be Duke, who seems the only wise guy around. He doesn’t put himself into situations where he is forced to act out of necessity. Everything he takes is as half-hearted as he, and only at the provocation of one Viola does he get up from his seat and seek to prove himself to the world. Only he gets proofed himself: when confronted with the possibility that his loyal messenger was doing dibs behind his back with one Olivia, he issues the order of execution as per the noble must stake themselves. All is well, though. Sebastian arrives. The conflict is resolved. Everything seems to make sense again. And Duke is inevitably forced by the situation that he invoked; or that which invoked itself unto him, to marry Viola. Indeed the characters in this play are balanced by their relationships. The first and foremost cause was to gain stability while obliging the rules of higher society, which the playwright so successfully threads. The only thing that seemed to spark a glint of intelligence to the characters’ identity was the presence of one Fool, who is the only reason this whole play didn’t mentally incapacitate the audience. Nevertheless, the play culminates with the return of reason (logic); though the governing dynamics are still the same threaded by higher powers, to an understanding of which I hope to bring the reader of my essay.

Deception and Its Dramatic Effects in Shakespeares Much...

Deception and Its Dramatic Effects in Shakespeares Much Ado About Nothing and Twelfth Night Shakespeare uses deception and trickery in both Twelfth Night and Much Ado to provide humour and dramatic irony for the audience. The deception also furthers the plot or sub-plot. The dramatic effects of this trickery are the irony, anticipation and empathy with the characters. In the scene from Much Ado, deception is used to create a romance which turns out to be more than is intended by the characters doing the deceiving. In Twelfth Night the purpose of the deception is purely for fun and to provide humour for the audience. Benedick is deceived by Claudio, Leonato and Don Pedro. Malvolio†¦show more content†¦He is deceived by way of a letter from Maria (pretending to be Olivia) which in fact says very little in direct terms. Maria and her friends send the letter because they are sick of Malvoilios self love. It is Malvolio himself who creates the deception by tricking himself into creating a meaning for everything in the letter, however cryptic. Malvolio is however; very capable of deceiving himself anyway and frequently does so, making it easy for the letter to have meaning for him Benedick is tricked into eavesdropping by a well planned conversation, which involves Benedick overhearing his name in a conversation-a typical way of intentionally getting someone to eavesdrop. He eavesdrops because he hears his name and the conversation follows through to the subject of romance, which captures Benedicks attention and keeps it, meanwhile Benedick is determined to stay hidden from Monsieur Love. He is told that Beatrice has an undying love for him but she would never tell him because it would ruin their constant wit matches. The deceivers signal to each other when they know that they have Benedicks attention by referring to hunting phrases, as though he has been caught into a trap, which indeed he has. Well fit the hid-fox with a pennyworth He believes what he hears because of everything that is said about Beatrice not wanting to tell him