Daisy Miller: A Study of Patriarchal Perception

This paper examines patriarchal perception in Henry James\u27 novella Daisy Miller. The novella does not provide objective presentations of the characters; instead, the narrative presents a subjective depiction, mostly of Daisy Miller, according to the inner thoughts of only one character, Frederick Winterbourne. Yet Winterbourne is not technically the narrator; his thoughts are disclosed by an unknown character in the story some time after the story occurs. Winterbourne\u27s subjectivity being relayed through another character-narrator portrays Winterbourne\u27s perceptions without explicitly analyzing his behavior. I argue that this complex narrative structure transparently divulges pre-established patriarchal notions that affect Winterbourne\u27s perceptions of Daisy, thus executing a social critique. For example, Winterbourne\u27s familial, social, and geographical circumstances construct a patriarchal distribution of information. Geneva, where Winterbourne develops his beliefs of male-female relations, has its own standards for women\u27s behaviors that include abiding by propriety and submissiveness. Winterbourne\u27s relatives, such as his aunt, attempt to prohibit interaction with Daisy because her behavior deviates from this template. Winterbourne subjects Daisy to oppressive classifications, and his observations of her reflect his proclivity to establish a formula that applied to Miss Daisy Miller (James 12). He holds various notions of Daisy from American flirt (James 12) to young lady whom a gentleman need no longer be at pains to respect (James 60). All of these notions and formulas result from a pre-established patriarchal metric that Winterbourne adopts and inherits via the patriarchal distribution of information

Review of Madeleine L.H. Campbell\u27s Animals, Ethics and Us

In Animals, Ethics, and Us, Dr. Madeleine L.H. Campbell offers insight into the moral landscape of human-animal relations through a specific ethical framework that rejects the rights of non-human animals, opting instead for a “qualified utilitarian approach” (2019, 9). For Campbell, animal ethics should not be bound to animal rights or the autonomy of individual animals; she asserts that animal rights should not factor into the moral consideration of animals at all. Since she does not confer animals a moral status or form of rights and instead relies on the utilitarian approach, Campbell attempts to locate the justifying logic of necessity (or non-necessity) in each of these issues and demonstrate how the human use of animals in a particular situation is, or is not, legitimate. There are some notable issues with this approach: Campbell’s moral framework can essentially justify anything done to animals—if it is ‘beneficial’ to humans in any capacity. In this review, I briefly summarize her argument and its applications, then delve into some criticisms of her views

Recognizing Exploitation and Rejecting Analogy: An Analysis of the Meat-Commodity

This paper is a two-part project. First, I reject the analogous relationship between the Holocaust and slaughterhouses (found in the anti-meat novel The Lives of Animals) and cross-species analogical thinking entirely; instead, I opt for modes of analysis that can examine the specific circumstances of animals within slaughterhouses. Secondly, I assert that a socio-economic Marxist analysis is the best prism in which to recognize the suffering of pre-slaughter animals and the causation of their suffering (the ostensibly necessary circulation and production of the meat-commodity)

Recognizing Exploitation and Rejecting Analogy: An Analysis of the Meat-Commodity

This paper is a two-part project. First, I reject the analogous relationship between the Holocaust and slaughterhouses (found in the anti-meat novel The Lives of Animals) and cross-species analogical thinking entirely; instead, I opt for modes of analysis that can examine the specific circumstances of animals within slaughterhouses. Secondly, I assert that a socio-economic Marxist analysis is the best prism in which to recognize the suffering of pre-slaughter animals and the causation of their suffering (the ostensibly necessary circulation and production of the meat-commodity)