Explain how the texts set for stud in the CP elective have explored the subjective nature of experience.
We see how each perspective is formed or motivated and hence we are able to observe how they are a product of a particular subjective experience.
Every individual experiences an event in their own unique and evocative way and as such, every event amounts in numerous perspectives and opinions. It is when these opinions clash that conflicting outlooks arise and composers are inspired to critique the associated events and personalities and present the divergent motivations and circumstances of each individual. Shakespeare’s tragedy ‘Julius Caesar’, examines how the conflicting perspectives surrounding Caesar’s legitimacy as a ruler is driven by ulterior experiences and as such, evokes responses from the audience about Rome’s monarchy vs. republic dilemma. Similarly, Larry Buttrose’s feature article ‘Et tu Julia’ (the Australian 2010) through the exclusive intertextual references to Julius Caesar whilst representing the conflicting attitudes and experiences that surrounds Kevin Rudd’s dismissal, allows for and evokes responses regarding the legitimacy of Gillard’s political actions. Thus, through examining the motivations and circumstances that drive each perspective, the audience can gain a deeper understanding of and observe how these perspectives are a product of a particular subjective experience.
In his five act tragedy ‘Julius Caesar’, Shakespeare draws on numerous unique persuasive tactics to evoke a sense of thought within the audience regarding Rome’s political situation as he presents Caesar as a legitimate monarch and a potential tyrant. Shakespeare presents Caesar and the monarchy as a legitimate ruling system for Rome as he implicitly parallels Caesar to the gods ‘When beggars die, there are no comets seen, the heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes’, where the stark juxtaposition and Shakespeare’s deliberate choice the diction ‘prince’ alludes to a successful and necessary system of monarchy with Caesar, the prince – the heir – as the ruler. This subsequently evokes individual responses from the audience about Rome’s political situation as they assess Caesar’s experiences and with it, the validity of the argument posed. This viewpoint is further evident in Casca’s ironic statement ‘A tempest dropping fire… there is a civil strife in heaven…the world … incenses them [the gods] to send destruction’ where the distinctive celestial imagery foreshadows the death of a legitimate ruler. However, Shakespeare also presents the opposing attitude of Caesar as a potentially ambitious tyrant as he showcases the conspirators perspectives and justification which alludes to the audiences ethos ‘think him as a serpent’s egg, which hatch’d, would…grow mischievous, and kill him in the shell’, as a result, the aphorism that power corrupts is highlighted and through the metaphor, compounded by the biblical allusion and the Christian mythos that symbolizes snakes as mischievous, devious and evil, the potential for Caesar to be tyrannical is outlined and a case is made against having a political system of monarchy. Thus, by examining the ulteriror motives of each perspective regarding Rome’s political situation, the responders are irrefutably exposed to how each attitude driven by a subjective experience of Caesar as a ruler.
Similarly, Larry Buttrose’s representation of Julia Gillard in ‘Et tu Julia’ exclusively incorporates intertextual references to ‘Julius Caesar’ in order to evoke a unique response about the nature of Gillard’s political actions. Buttrose’s use of the central rhetorical question, ‘we have to see whether the real Julia Caesar is a reforming republican or an imperial stooge’, is a direct historical allusion to the murder of Caesar by this trusted second, raising the same question of whether the ‘political assassination’ was justifiably ethical. In support of Rudd, Buttrose presents Gillard’s character to be autocratic and immoral through his use of distinctive idiosyncratic Australian colloquialism, ‘[Rudd was a P.M who] wanted to buy back the farm from mining interests.’ The term relevantly and contextually creates the image of a Rudd that was driven by and more interested in the public good, than short term political power play and hence, evokes a strong perspective within the Australian responders. Moreover, like Shakespeare who uniquely listed Caesar’s credibility via Antony to highlight the injustice of Caesar’s assassination, Buttrose, as part of his unique intertextual ‘Julius Caesar’ references, lists Rudd’s benefits in hope of achieving a same goal ‘improving health services, education and housing, and trying to take action against global warming,’ this listing and anecdotal evidence allows a feeling of nostalgia to accumulate within the responder which evokes an ethical and emotional response to Rudd’s political assassination. However, Buttrose also presents the opposing perspective that Gillard was justified because she was motivated by and was successful in saving the party from a political loss at the next elections. In order to do this, Buttrose effectively and directly quotes the unique slogan, ‘Rudd the Dud… driven by rage… unstable and not to be trusted,’ which evokes a sense of legitimacy towards Gillard’s claim for leadership through infantilizing Rudd’s legitimacy as P.M, and elevating his rash political outlooks. Further backing this claim is the unique employment of polling statistics in a feature article, which aims to appeal to ones unique sense of logos as Rudd was, ‘9 percent lead by liberal’, and ‘losing electoral appeal.’ The advent of the politically salient jargon evokes the belief that Rudd’s exile was a necessary and justified political move by Gillard. Hence, it is clear that both perspectives are motivated by a different need and hence, exposed to a different experience. As a result, readers are left with a strong influence which evokes a strong response as it showcases the subjective nature of experiences in creating divergent motives.
Additionally, Shakespeare highlights starkly differing opinions regarding Julius Caesar’s assassination to empathize with the audience’s sense of pathos and evoke questions about the justification of the murder through the juxtaposing orations by Brutus and Antony. Shakespeare, through the employment of characterization, represents the idea that the assassination was justified as Brutus discusses experiences in an attempt to draw the plebeians as well as the audience. This is achieved through his use of anacoenesis and rhetoric ‘Had you rather Caesar were living and die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead to love all free men?’ the pathos within these lines evokes individual responses from the audience members and emphasizes this statement as a holistic argument that strongly provides justification for Caesar’s death. However, this is subverted by Antony’s ironic twist of logic as Shakespeare attempts to showcase the unjust nature of the murder ‘I will not do them wrong; I rather choose…to wrong myself and you, than I will wrong such honourable men’, where the strong allusion to ones ethos elucidates the perspective of injustice whilst the high modality and tone of confidence showcases Antony’s concern for the common plebeians and evokes a sense of sympathy from the audience. The unjustified nature of Caesar’s assassination is further highlighted through Antony’s antithesis and exclusive use of Brutus’ honor to undermine him ‘He [Caesar] was my friend, faithful and just…he hath…the general coffers fill…thrice refused [the crown]…yet Brutus says he was ambitious’ the dramatic and verbal irony within these lines, along with the amplified use of recollected experiences, suggests that the more honorable Brutus grew, the more misguided and blinded he became. As a result, this evokes a sense of injustice within some audience members as it strongly links to ones ethos. Thus, it is irrefutable that, through the differing outlooks upon Caesar’s assassination which seek to evoke a deep understanding of meaning and conclusion about the justification of the assassination, Shakespeare demonstrates how differing and personalized experiences determine ones perspective.
Thus it can be see that both composers showcases how each perspective is formed or motivated and hence, demonstrate to the audience that conflicted attitudes are product of particular subjective experiences.