Department of English                               Gymnasium Steglitz Berlin

Contact

Home

Table of Contents

Collective Responsibility - can it be denied ?

When J.B. Priestley wrote his play "An Inspector Calls" in 1947 many people liked to believe in the inspector´s message that "we all are members of one body". Is his appeal still necessary today? Do we have a collective responsibility for other peoples´ welfare? Even in our day and age millions of people live below the social border.

Where does the 'social border' begin?

In order to see where the need of responsibility begins I want to define the term ‘social border’. As there are different kinds of poverty I want to differentiate two types:

‘Poverty in Western Europe’

In our society living below the ‘social border’ means having no flat; but also having no car, no cell phone, no delicacies to eat, suffering from unemployment and alcoholism. Over the past few years there have been many dismissals due to the bad economic situation all over the world. But still there are so called ‘Job Centres’ where unemployed people are offered new jobs. The main point when (e.g.) watching alcoholism is that the addicted themselves are to blame. The vicious circle containing job and living space still exists: No flat Ù no job; no job Ù no flat. It takes a lot of energy and willpower to leave this swamp, but still it is possible.

‘Poverty in Developing Countries’

In the countries near the equator less than 3% live above this border: This type of poverty describes the living conditions in the Developing Countries in Africa for example. The problems these people have already begin with very simple things like water or basic food. They often have neither of them or very little, more than 1.000 people are starving to death in the world every day. Furthermore, the political situation in these countries can hardly be rated as successful or satisfying. Rather it is a catastrophe. The people leading the state must not be called ‘leaders’, rather they are dictators. The whole state system is corrupt, the governments never feel guilty of anything and only work for their own profit.
But this is not all the inhabitants of poor countries suffer from. They would be lucky if it was… As the medical provision is insufficient or even non-existent, many illnesses – such as epidemics… – cannot be cured. An additional problem is that there is no sexual education, which makes it easy for diseases – like aids – to spread and kill even more humans. Besides the birth rate is not controlled, or rather people do not know how to. So here living above the ‘social border’ in those areas means having anything to eat, a little water and some clothes.
As there is some help offered to the people mentioned first (social assistance, financial support, sleeping possibilities…) I want to concentrate on the group of people who do not have any money and all live below the subsistence level.

What can be done against it?

First of all for us the most comfortable way to help is donating things like toys, games, basic food, clothes – not only money. But let us view the financial aid: It is not as expensive as everyone thinks. With very little sums of money such as 15 euros you can nourish one person for a whole month! For 150 euros a new natural spring water supply can be drilled and kept in working order. No one has to be ashamed of ‘only’ donating 10 euros to an organisation.
There are loads of organisations in Germany who see their task in constructing buildings like schools, churches, playgrounds, wells and warehouses for nourishment, giving school and sexual education and putting all their plans such as food aid – which you paid for – into practice. They also pay attention to a smooth distribution of the money donated to places in need. They have instructed personnel for the work in these countries.
But even if your financial situation does not allow to share much, you can still donate things you already have but do not need anymore. Collection campaigns are also carried out by charity organisations.
Even if you feel unable to give away things – for whatever reason – there is still a possibility of helping. A lot of social organisations are based on honorary work. None of them will ever reject an offer of help. Commit yourself!
It is very important that the first thing you do is to accept the people and to occupy yourself with their fate, their situation, their sorrows… Just donating some money by signing a transfer cheque in the bank wouldn’t be the right attitude. At the most it eases your conscience. If the citizens of the rich countries deal with this topic and work hard for an improvement the politicians will notice it and will have to act, too.

Are we responsible for putting helpful steps into action?

Yes and no.

Yes, theoretically, because we are all parts of one system. If one part does not thrive, the rest will not prosper either. But unfortunately this is theory. From the practical point of view you’d rather say that the existing situation is a consequence of non-considerate behaviour. Economically the rich states would easily be able to buy the products produced by the poor, which does not happen too much in these days, because they are not as cheap as the mass-produced articles from the supermarkets. No, because it is absolutely not our fault, not personally at least. Our ancestors exploited and misused the peoples in today’s Developing Countries, so why should it be my fault?

I, of course, support the yes part, because that is what sense of responsibility and sympathy with those living on the same planet as we do means. Even if the guilt does not lie on us it is our job to look after the socially disdvantaged. The whole matter is a question of moral. Some people feel responsible some do not. The widening chasm shows it is necessary to act. Always keep an example in mind: With the money for one bottle of beer you drink, one person’s welfare can be guaranteed for a whole week! No one wants to tell you that you should stop drinking beer or enjoying yourself, but please try to see the misery happening at the same time as we are feasting in our world.

Collective responsibility can absolutely not be denied.

 

Melting Pot or Salad Bowl ?

Neither of those approaches can be successful

Immigration poses problems

Migration is becoming routine, as many hundreds of thousands of people who fear for their lives or hunger trek to safer and richer countries each year. The numbers rise and fall, but the trend is upwards as the world’s population grows, and travel and communication get cheaper. Accurate figures are hard to find, but a million people or more emigrate to America each year, some legally, some illegally. Where legal migration is severely restricted, as in many states of the European Union, migrants try to get around the rules by applying for political asylum instead.
Immigration poses two main challenges for the governments of the rich part of the world. One is how to manage the inflow of migrants; the other, how to integrate those who are already there. Whom, for example, to allow in? Already, many governments have realized that the market for top talent is global and competitive. Whereas the case for attracting the highly skilled is becoming conventional wisdom, a more complicated issue is what to do about the unskilled.

Melting Pot ? - Salad Bowl ? - Ethnic Stew

Left: "The Mortar of Assimilation" (Puck Magazine, 26 June 1889). Miss America stirs the melting pot with the ladle of equal rights.

There are three well-known models for integrating immigrants: Firstly the so-called melting pot, which ‘melts’ the characters, opinions, languages and ethnic rites in a mortar. In this case the government would insist that the immigrants must integrate themselves completely concerning language and the other issues mentioned above. The aim is that all cultures are reflected in one common culture. The disadvantage of this system is that the personal characteristics and social marks get lost after some time because they are not allowed to be officially shown. Secondly: The salad-bowl model, which means that ‘the ingredients’ stay visible after mixing them. When you eat the salad you can still taste what it is made of. The conditioning is spread over the ingredients to turn the different bits into one dish. In political terms: The differences between groups are being maintained, but the connection among them is established. This promising sauce unifies the taste, but is poured over from outside and does not automatically create an inner coherence.

And last but not least: The ethnic stew is similar to melting pot and salad bowl, but here all the ingredients are mixed in a sort of soup or goulash, which means that the vegetables and different pieces of meat still keep their structure, create their proper sauce during the cooking which lets the pieces move easily and the single tastes are blended into one.
In my opinion neither melting pot nor salad bowl would be a tolerable and sufficient solution. Governments should rather have a look at the suggestion of ethnic stew. But what would characterize such a system?

Ideas on immigration rules

I already mentioned that immigration politics is part of a government’s biggest challenges especially after November 19th, 1954, when the United States’ immigrant-processing centre on Ellis Island closed its doors. 

I would like to show some examples and give suggestions what especially has to be considered. In general, it is important that immigration must never lead to financially bad consequences. In other words: The state should not be expected to pay the costs of living for its immigrants. It has to be possible that immigrants are made responsible for it themselves.
A requirement for immigrants (not those asking for political asylum, of course) to be let in must be language skills. Otherwise none of them would get by earning the cost of life or be able to make himself understood. To say nothing of having contact with one’s neighbours, colleagues etc. What the state should do is offer language courses providing the ability to improve one’s language capabilities.
Once the new citizens have arrived they will also have to find an occupation in order to finance their livelihood. If this is not done soon the social system is damaged or at least overburdened.
If the school administration looks after mixed nationality classes the descendants of immigrants are already confronted with foreign cultures at a little age. For all these things to be respected, there must be information offers in order to ease life as much as possible.
In order to control the integration and behaviour of the new citizens there should be a probationary period in which the immigrants would have to show that they are really ready and able to integrate themselves into society. Without such (as critics would call it) a ‘back door’ the state would be unable to guarantee a normal every-day life and to remove negative factors from society. This seem hard but necessary.

But let’s get back to the actual question whether a salad bowl or a melting pot is better for America. Neither of them can be successful. The ideal solution is the ethnic stew.

Educational ideals in the past and today

In the nineteen-eighties, when "Education in Britain and America" (1) was published, responsible people for the development of the educational plans mainly considered the students' needs in the future and their social competences in general.

Educational ideals in the past

John Dewey (1859 - 1952) The father of modern education

What people in America especially had a look at was to transmit the attitude of belonging to one's country and not to oneself. That is at least what Benjamin Rush stated. He wanted the educators to tell their students that e.g. in military conflicts they would have to leave and forget their families, even if they loved them very much in order to guarantee a good life for the whole community of America. He also wanted the pupils to be taught that the only state system in which one could live in freedom was democracy. In 1790 Thomas Jefferson, for example, talked about the selection of talented pupils "from the poor" and proposed that not all the youths should be educated by the country, but only those who were highly intelligent. Someone whose opinion is completely different is John Dewey, who said in 1915 that these two views must lead to the development of different classes in society. He said that differences concerning money and skills must not be decisive for the level of education provided to the pupils by the state.

The modern view
These were the needs of former times, but let's have a look at the problems of the present time, which require the workers to be extremely qualified and highly skilled in order to guarantee a well-running economic system which provides wealth to the population. No one says that the main concerns of earlier times were completely wrong, but I would like to add some more criteria:
When children reach school age they firstly must be helped to develop their own character, because this normally hasn't happened at their age yet. Today a cleverly thought-out system is needed so that pupils can be imparted all the knowledge in different classes they need for their later studies and their professional life. They must get to know the whole world concerning its different cultures, languages, figures and rites, which will lead to a tolerant character. Besides the youths must learn what every-day life with their friends, neighbours and family really means in a social context. They need to be transmitted social courage, that means standing up for one´s own beliefs, which is rather seldom in these days. Children must create and develop their own conscience respecting political, democratic, racial and social issues. All these aspects must obviously be accessible for everyone whatever social level he comes from. The way to access these needs must be provided by teachers who themselves must be taught to educate those who are entrusted with them.
Of course, Benjamin Rush´s thoughts of being the state's property are out-dated, nowadays one is somewhat responsible for the country's welfare by electing a government one really supports.
Finally what I consider as most important is the students' preparation for their after-school life, which means equipping them with a thorough general knowledge, at least two foreign languages and social competences such as discussion skills and social courage. Current days show what happens if pupils are not qualified for a business life: high unemployment and a stuttering economy are the consequences.

(1) "Education in Britain and America", ed. Elke Stenzel and others. Ernst Klett Verlag, Stuttgart 1987

Educating Rita is a play about personal change

Her character develops in many apects, positive and negative.

Rita, a young woman in her late twenties is a hairdresser and as such from the working class. Readers of Willy Russell´s "Educating Rita" soon recognize her will of leaving this class and becoming educated. Coming from a working class background she feels rather uneducated, but she wants to improve her living conditions by attending literature courses because knowledge in literature-related topics seems "real education" to Rita. The reason for the late beginning of her studies is that having suffered from peer pressure built up by her family and friends she was not allowed or even able to consider school as interesting or even important. The consequences are evident: Bad graduation from school, very early start in working life without qualification.

Willy Russell

Her advantage is that she is really motivated and she shows her will of finally achieving a satisfying education several times during the open-university phase. She underlines her determination by separating from her husband who does not accept and maybe not understand why his wife changes to such an extent.

Educating Rita certainly is a play about personal change. During the story both of the main characters develop on a bigger scale, but I obviously want to concentrate on Rita’s new characteristics. Frank, her tutor at the university, is puzzled to meet an unexpectedly rough and cheeky character, who speaks a very colloquial and strikingly inappropriate language. This changes a lot when Rita starts spending a lot of time with her flatmate, Trish, who "says there is not a lot of point in discussing beautiful literature in an ugly voice".

As she imagines university being rather easy and believes that (exaggerated:) "having a good time" with one’s tutor is all you need, she does not have any doubts of achieving a graduation from her studies without any problems. We can especially see this when Rita writes her first literary essays and must learn that Frank expects written results which differ from hers. After a time of getting acclimatized to her teacher’s habits and after her additional studies at the summer school during the holidays she shows a real interest and excellent skills in literary interpretation.

Having won a certain self-confidence in the relationship with Frank she starts separating from Frank piece by piece ("I wanna read and understand without havin’ to come running to you every five minutes"). That means she does not come to all the weekly tutorials with Frank anymore. This is surprising as she often told him before that her only motivation for passing the week was the common lesson in the end. But also she stops talking about all the personal subjects that matter in her life (Frank: "…there was a time when you told me everything"). When Frank invited her to dinner in the first act, she did not appear due to a lack of self-confidence. She thought that Frank’s only intention in inviting her was the possibility of presenting her to his other guests as a "good example" of someone from the working class. Rita’s stay at summer school confronted her another time with unknown characters (this time) of other students, but her final will of becoming independent helped her to overcome her fears.

The newly confident Rita even turns over into a sort of over-confidence: At a certain point in the play Rita explains to Frank that she had started talking to other students and that she corrected them and their views ("I thought I can keep on walking an’ ignore it, or I can put him straight") and also she tells Frank that she did not need him anymore assuming that she was as educated and intelligent as he is ("I know what clothes to wear, what wine to buy, what plays to see and what papers and books to read. I can do without you.").

Rita loses much of her personal individuality and originality because of adjusting her behaviour to other peoples’ opinions and views (especially Trish’s). When she talks to Frank she starts repeating facts someone else told her. Frank realizes this and tells her that she is not herself anymore but that she starts quoting other people’s words. This somehow gives the reader the impression of her being less intelligent. Something that does not "develop" is the rejection of her class origin, which, after all, has been the reason for attempting to change her living circumstances completely and for leaving her social position for a new and higher position with intelligent people.

Being happier is not a question of acquiring a new character, so having changed in many ways does not automatically mean feeling happy. Rita did get to know many new people and some became friends and she learned many things about literature as well, which makes her feel rather educated. Even if she only imagines so, Rita seems to be very satisfied with her new situation for the moment. She will have to see herself how long this will last. In any case, her time at the university brought her new abilities, skills and experiences, her character developed in many apects, positive and negative ones.