Invididual Opportunity in Death of a Salesman

The main character and the author of this story have two very differing ideas about individual opportunity. There is one common theme throughout in the story, and Miller uses his characters evasion of the truth as a means to further his own beliefs about the topic in question. Willy Loman has an unwavering belief throughout most of the story that if an individual works hard, and is well liked, they can accomplish anything. Early on, it is stated that one of his goals is to have a large attendance at his funeral so that his sons will see how well liked he was throughout his travels. His beliefs are put into strong doubt however when he is struggling to make ends meet, and is ultimately fired from his job. Even under these circumstances, Willy believes his sons have it in themselves to be whatever they wish to be. Happy buys this mentality, hook, line and sinker. Biff does too for a time, but he begins to question this line of thinking when he discovers his father has been unfaithful. Biff is really the only character who questions the mentality of individual opportunity throughout the story, Happy and Willy never even come remotely close. Arthur Miller shares a view that contrasts quite sharply from that of his protagonists. He believes that indidivual opportunity is a myth and he evidences this by having Willy, a strong proponent of individual opportunity, fail at nearly ever endevour he puts himself towards. By the end of the story, Willy has died alone and unfulfilled, and Happy appears to be going in a similar direction. Whether Biff will break this cycle himself is difficult to tell.

Question for 'Death of a Salesman'

How specifically does Biff's view of individual opportunity change throughout the course of the story?

Charity Speeches (Day 2)

Once again, I was quite impressed with our classes speeches today, as I was before. People who had been extremely nervous going in went into the speech and delivered it confidently. Hopefully they will take this to heart, and realize they are quite capable of achieving these sorts of things when it really comes down to it. Seeing as fewer people went today, I have fewer comments in general to make. What I wrote yesterday is still applicable today. I was impressed with Matt L's presentation as he used pathos extremely effectively. His story at the beginning captured my attention immediately, and I was apt to hear what he had to say. Bailey's presentation I also felt was quite good. Knowing what her charity was going in, it wasn't something I originally would have seen myself supporting. I thought it seemed like a good cause, but there seemed to be far more pressing ones. However, she quickly convinced me of the worthiness of her cause, and I began to see the need for her charity. It seemed like an extremely effective one in terms of breaking the cycle of poverty. Once again, another fruitful day of presentations. I hope we have all taken out of it that we can all indeed speak publicly, and do it well.

Charity Speeches (Day 1)

At the end of the day, I was extremely impressed by our classes speeches. Everyone did extremely well in covering the points they wanted too. They were all succinct and persuasive. Even those who were quite obviously not as comfortable as others with the idea of giving a speech in front of their classmates were able to put that fear aside and give quite a good speech. Everyone far exceeded my expectations, and I was quite pleased with the outcome. I thought Chris' entire presentation was particularly good. He appeared at ease with his speaking, and his easy going manner helped put his audience at ease as well, making them more apt to listen to what he had to say. His arguments were all well-crafted. Also, kudos to Chris for being the only one to not use the lectern, I doubt very much that I myself will attempt such a feat. Jim's presentation was also very good. He managed to connect with his audience down on a very emotional level. As someone who has volunteered at his charity several times, I felt that he aptly captured the spirit of the place itself in his presentation. JD's presentation was extremely effective, especially when he told the story about the little girl and the decimal worksheet. It was a poignant story, and it was told extremely well. It resonated with me personally because this was something that had actually happened to JD, not just a story he had looked up (something I had to do myself, since I have never actually been to Africa) and something I'm sure quite a few of us had to do, as not all of us have had specific experiences that we can tie into our charity. He did it deftly and adroitly. The presentations today were quite good, and I look forward to the continuation and conclusion of our presentations tomorrow.

Self-Reliance

Emerson makes the argument that our own spiritual success is dependent on two things, that we never conform to the opinions of the mass and that our own opinions do not remain constantly constant (pun intended). These two notions seem at first glance to be contradictory, and as such, we must hold two contradictory notions in our head if we are to grasp the essence of what Emerson is saying. Emerson says we must constantly evaluate the things we believe in. In a way, we can not become self-conformists, adhering to what we believe in so strongly that we never question it. This is as much a cause for ignorance as any other. The other major point Emerson makes is that we cannot conform to opinions of a group. But, at the same time, we cannot be completely separate from the group. We must be part of the group and yet separate at the same time. This is the true key to self-reliance. 

The American Class System

I do not feel that Mantsios is making the explicit argument that the wealthy have exploited the poor. Rather, he seems to feel that the current economic system has taken advantage of the poor. Mantsios makes the point that those born into a certain social situation will almost always continue to exist in that particular social situation. Those born into wealth and privilege will most likely continue living this lifestyle while likewise, those born into poverty will find it extremely hard to advance beyond those circumstances. This does not seem to me to be a knock on the wealthy, for those who are born into privilege can hardly help being born into privilege. Rather, it seems to me that Mantsios is bemoaning the fact that a certain mythos seems to permeate America that if you work hard enough, you can overcome any circumstance, while in reality we do not give the poor enough opportunities to do this. The fault does not lie inherently with those in the upper social classes, they can hardly help the situation they were born into. The real fault lies with the fact that many cannot find jobs they so sorely need, or that the jobs they do find do not pay enough. In addition, lackluster education compounds the problem. There is an old axiom that goes "Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime". One of the best way to help improve the situation of the poor is to give them the tools they need to escape their poverty. Education in this country is simply not up to the standards it should be in many areas. Is there one simple solution for this problem? Obviously not. If there were, I'm sure it would have been attempted at this point. But the fact remains, if we intend to close the economic gap between the classes, we need to give the lower classes the tools they need to advance themselves. 

Dalton v. Alger

Alger makes the point in Ragged Dick that success can be gained no matter what a person's origins are. Dalton's essay exists solely to make the point that Alger's argument is flawed. Dalton argues that ones social circumstances have an extremely large effect on ones ability to progress up the social ladder.  Dalton makes the point that, as an African-American, he often had to face prejudice in the workplace. There are stereotypes which limit people in certain areas. Dalton noted that being affluent as an African-American often aroused shock from ignorant individuals. This made advancement extremely difficult as people already had preconceived notions about what he could do as an individual. He makes the point that these notions limit us as individuals.