Reading Journals
Title: A Modest Proposal
Author: Jonathan Swift
Summary: A Modest Proposal is a satirical essay written to mock the hypocrisy of the wealthy and their heartless attitude toward the poor in the 18th century Ireland. The focus is on the poor: the landlords (most of whom were the English) treated their farm workers badly: the taxes were very high, the income was low and as a result of all this, many Irish families lived on the edge of starvation. Mothers, unable to provide food for their children, had to beg for alms and these children usually grew up to be thieves or simply emigrated from their country. Swift offers a solution to this problem, he finds ”a fair, cheap and easy method of making these children sound and useful members of the Commonwealth” (Swift, par.2). His suggestion is to fatten up these undernourished children and sell them to rich landowners as food. At the age of one, as Swift says, they should be sold into a meat market. The calculations he makes show the exact number of children to be sold, their price, consumption patterns, etc. He even mentions some culinary recipes for the rich. He says that his proposal, if adopted, will solve several problems in the country such as overpopulation, unemployment, additional expenses of child-bearing, etc. In few points, he makes a conclusion saying that the realization of his plan may improve the social, political as well as economical situation in the country.
Quotes: "It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town, or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin-doors crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags, ad importuning every passenger for an alms" (Swift, 1).
“I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London; that a young healthy child, well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food; whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled, and I make no doubt, that it will equally serve in a fricassee, or ragout” (Swift, 3).
"I profess, in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavouring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the public good of my country" (Swift, 7).
Questions: What are the advantages and disadvantages of his plan? Whose side Swift takes in this essay and how do we know it? What problem does Swift seek to solve with this essay? Is there anything ambiguous in the text? For whom is this essay written? Does Swift blame anyone in particular for the situation in the country? How would a 21st century society react to this suggestion of Swift?
My personal response: I must confess I knew very little of Ireland in the 1700s, however, once I read the text it wasn’t hard to conclude what the situation in the country was. I was little sceptical when I read the title of the essay: I expected a reasonable and relevant suggestion but instead, I got a big joke. One needs to read only several lines of the text to see that Swift’s proposal is everything but modest. When Swift finally began to introduce the true nature of his suggestions, I took a step back to make sure I understood what he was implying. But it was impossible to misunderstand him as he went into too many details. He elaborated his plan, providing an argument for every statement he had made. His real intentions are well hidden under irony and sarcasm, which he used so skilfully. While reading the text I had a feeling that the author wanted us (readers) to feel perfectly normal about his plan, just as he did. It seemed like he wanted us to identify with those unscrupulous people who didn’t care about anyone. However, if we think about the purpose of this essay, which is to mock the hypocrisy and tyranny, I think we can all agree that Swift did an amazing job. He is merciless, almost cruel to the wealthy. Unfortunately, I think that very few poor people managed to read this essay at the time. Education was a luxury and something reserved only for the wealthy. My opinion is that their [of the wealthy] feedback to this essay of his was not negative. On the contrary, I think they thought of it as a comedy, written to entertain them.
Title: Kid Kustomers
Author: Eric Schlosser
Summary: In his essay, Eric Schlosser discovers the tactics marketing companies and manufacturers use to target children. According to him, it all started in the 1980s when parents started spending large sums of money on their children. They [parents] felt guilty for not spending more time with their children and this was their way to make it up to them. Advertising companies took advantage of the so-called “decade of the child consumer” and focused their campaign on children. They observed children of specific ages to discover their interests and habits. This provided them insights on how to improve their business plan to attract more children and create “cradle-to-grave customers” (Schlosser, 2). Their strategies usually included mascots such as fast food clowns, talking Chihuahuas or cartoon characters like Joe Camel. A great number of research showed that these strategies were very effective as they led to a constant nagging of children in order to get what they wanted. There were many attempts to ban television ads directed to the children under the age of seven but none of them were realized. As E.Schlosser states, children will continue to spend too much time in front of a television, not differentiating programmes from commercials, and the advertising companies are the only ones to benefit from it (5).
Quotes: “Hoping that nostalgic childhood memories of a brand will lead to a lifetime of purchases, companies now plan “cradle-to-grave” advertising strategies. They have come to believe what Ray Kroc and Walt Disney realized long ago- a person’s “brand loyalty” may begin as early as the age of two. Indeed, market research has found that children often recognize a brand logo before they can recognize their own name” (Schlosser, 2).
“The Saturday-morning children's ads that caused angry debates twenty years ago now seem almost quaint. Far from being banned, TV advertising aimed at kids is now broadcast twenty-four hours a day, closed-captioned and in stereo. Nickelodeon, the Disney Channel, the Cartoon Network, and the other children's cable networks are now responsible for about 80 percent of all television viewing by kids” (Schlosser, 3).
Questions: What can we expect from advertising companies in the future? Is there any difference between a 21st century family and 19th century one when it comes to fulfilling their children’s requests and demands? How can we protect our children from advertising companies?
My personal response: I had known before that commercials have a lot of influence on children but I didn’t know to what extent. Now, when I read this article, I definitely think it is parents’ responsibility to protect their children from being hypnotized by these ad industries. Children should not spend so much time in front of a television as they are under a constant influence of its content. Parents should control what they are watching and if possible, watch that same programme with them. This is a good opportunity to socialize with them and make them turn their head and thoughts from the screen. It is in the child’s nature to nag when he/she wants something. It is ok and perfectly normal to take them to McDonalds for a meal, to buy them an ice-cream even though they hadn’t had dinner, to buy them a certain toy: every parent will do it under the excuse that they love their child. But it is also very important to be careful when fulfilling their desires: children are insatiable and always want more thus pushing the boundaries, which may lead to a syndrome of a spoiled child. As mentioned in the article, the advertising industry is getting worse and worse and one can only guess what its next means of persuasion will be.
Title: Television: The Plug-In Drug
Author: Marie Winn
Summary: The Plug-In Drug by Marie Winn is an article about television and its effects on family lives. It seemed like the invention of a television set would bring a family together. And it did, but not for a long time. No one expected that such an expensive toy would lead to a family decay. Families used to have certain rituals like a Sunday lunch, a walk, reading a story to children before bedtime and with the invention of television, all these rituals disappeared. The author writes about the importance of these family rituals as they are essential part of child’s growing up: through games, jokes and celebrations children accumulate memory making experiences that will follow them into their adulthood (Winn, 4). Television dominated family: there are no more conversations during meals, no more outings, gatherings and many other things that families did together. As Winn states, the home has become a caretaking institution and without its warmth the bond, that tied a family together, has gone (5). Too much time in front of a television can have serious consequences: children may have difficulties making eye contact, maintaining conversations and sometimes their interaction with parents may be endangered. As Winn states, so far nothing has changed but since the future of television is uncertain, one can only hope that the things will improve (9).
Quotes: “The kids were effectively shunted away and rendered untroublesome, while their parents enjoyed a life as undemanding as that of any childless couple. In reality, it is those very demands that young children make upon a family that lead to growth, and it is the way parents respond to those demands that builds the relationships upon which the future of the family depends. If a family does not accumulate its backlog of shared experiences, shared everyday experiences that occur and recur and change and develop, then it is not likely to survive as anything other than a caretaking institution” (Winn, 5).
“Families frequently use television to avoid confronting their problems, problems that will not go away if they are ignored but will only fester and become less easily resolvable as time goes on” (Winn, 7).
“As family ties grow weaker and vaguer, as children’s lives become more separate from their parents’, as parents’ educational role in their children’s lives is taken over by the media, the school, and the peer group, family life becomes increasingly more unsatisfying for both parents and children” (Winn, 9).
Questions: Can you think of any other invention that had a negative effect on a family? Why would children rather watch television for hours than go outside and play? In what way is a television “drug”? Will the situation improve or become even worse?
My personal response: The life of a family described in this article is a problem that we all face, but none of us is ready to talk about it. Nowadays, it is completely normal for an ordinary family to have two or three television sets or computers in their home. One thing is guaranteed here: no quarrels will arise among its members since hours can pass until they see each other. With one person sitting in a living room and another one lying in a bedroom there is no chance that conflicts of any kind will appear. We are usually not aware of the fact that technology constantly changes our lives. We are happy when a new gadget appears on the market and worry how to buy it, but the truth is that none of us thinks about the changes that certain gadget has brought. Television is not the single destroyer of the family life, there are many others, such as the Internet, social networks, cell phones, etc. They certainly make our lives easier but also bring many problems: they affect our social life, our family and love relationships. No one knows what future holds, there may be million gadgets, but none of them will help you fix your social life once it is destroyed.