23/24 Outline and evaluate the role of genetic factors in aggressive behaviour (24 marks)

Outline and evaluate the role of genetic factors in aggressive behaviour (24 marks)

The claim that aggression can be inherited through genes has been studied by a large number of psychologists. Twin studies have been particularly useful for exploring this biological explanation, and has allowed psychologists to look chiefly at genes; especially in monozygotic twins. Rutter found a higher concordance in aggression for MZ twins than DZ twins, suggesting that the more similar the genes are, the more likely they share genetic behaviour such as aggression. Coccaro found that nearly 50 % of the variance in direct aggressive behaviour in adults was attributed to genes and 70% of verbal aggression. However, this research also contradicts the role of genetics in aggression, as it gives equal weighting to environmental factors, which the other 50% of the variance is attributed to. This briefly outlines the gene-environment interaction approach, with a genetic predisposition reacting with the environment to influence aggressive behaviour. Adoption studies have also helped to differentiate between the complicated contributions of environment and heredity in aggression. If the adopted child and their biological parents display aggressive behaviour, it is likely that genetics play a stronger role than upbringing in a different environment Hutchings and Mednick studies 1400 adoptions in Denmark and found that a significant number of adopted boys with criminal convictions had biological parents (usually fathers) with criminal convictions. This supports that genetics influence aggression, as there is evidently a correlation even when separated from biological parents and the same environment. There is a problem that the only aggression measured was criminal convictions however, as it may not have picked up on antisocial behaviour not caught. In fact, with only studying criminal convictions, the psychologists could have ignored those who are arguably more intelligent and aggression- not having been caught and getting away with the crime.

There are some problems with twin studies. The first being that although MZ twins have a higher concordance rate for aggression in comparison with DZ twins, the concordance rate is never 100%. This suggests that genetic factors are not the only factors for aggression and environment does play a part. A predisposition for violence, but a disciplined and supportive home environment may stop this behaviour being a problem. Another problem is that MZ twins look exactly the same, and share the same biological makeup. This would affect how society treats the twins, perhaps the same way. In this instance, DZ twins would be treated more like individuals, and would therefore show more variance in their behaviour.

With both methodologies, criminality may be studies more than aggression, which affects internal validity. This means that the study fails to differentiate between violent and non-violent crime; an individual may have a conviction for fraud and placed in the same category as an individual in prison for manslaughter. Another issue is that habitual violence may be a better indicator for aggression, but again is placed in the same category as a one-off crime (a person who became aggressive once after consuming alcohol and bumping into someone they both had a mutual hatred for each other). Mednick et al found the biggest effect in their study was for non-violent crime. Brennan, however, compared the criminal history of adopted males and their biological and adoptive parents. They found that genetic influences were significant in cases of property but not violent crime. This piece of research shows that a crime personality may be inherited rather than aggressive behaviour. Being in a demonstratively moral and supportive environment teaches children not to be aggressive instead of becoming desensitised to it in a genetically likely household with many convictions.

Gender bias has also been criticised in the study of the role of genetics in aggression. Button et al found that the genetic heritability of aggressive anti-social behaviour was much higher for girls than boys (this was not the case for non-aggressive anti-social behaviour such as truancy). Button’s research indicates that heritability is stronger in women than men when it comes to aggression, and that more research would need to be taken for females. This may also explain the lower concordance in same sex DZ twins.

Other psychologists have explained the genetic link to aggression with a single gene- the MAOA. This warrior gene is linked with aggression, with lower levels increasing aggression. This may be dues to the role it has on regulating the metabolism of serotonin on the brain, with lower levels increasing aggression.  Brunner studied a Dutch family with the males showing high levels of violence (convictions and high antisocial behaviour levels). The study found abnormally low levels of MAOA, showing that deficiencies cause aggression. This study is culturally bound, and may not be demonstrative of the link between aggression and genes around the rest of the world. However, a gene-environment explanation may carry more weight. Caspi conducted a meta-analysis with 500 male children. He found that low levels of MAOA in the children did concord with antisocial behaviour, supportive of this explanation, however only if maltreated as a child. This shows that social environment plus genes influences behaviour, rather than just one or the other. Moffat found a similar conclusion. By examining abuse, convictions, violence and antisocial behaviour in 422 males from New Zealand, low levels of MAOA correlated with the risk of being convicted but again, only if they had suffered abuse. All of these studies are based on male aggression, with no incidences of female aggression. This is a weakness, which means that genes can only be shown to influence aggression on men.

Research into MAOA on aggression, like twin and adoption studies, focuses on individuals who have been convicted of violent crimes. This means that the studies only involve aggressive individuals who have been caught- who may tend to be low-intelligence individuals. This may explain why many studies fail to find evidence of genetic influences on aggression. They also fail to explain cultural differences which suggests that genetics are not the only factors in aggression, otherwise it would be universally correlated. In this way, the MAOA gene’s studies are ethnocentric, unable to be generalised to other countries.

However, research into this gene may be useful for society and the individual. Morley and Hall suggest that information from genetic screenings could be used to devise new treatments for personality disorders that have been identified as risk factors for criminal behaviours. The treatment would be able to lower the risk of the person being put in prison, and create a safer society. However, there are ethical weaknesses with this. This is rather deterministic, stating that the person will be aggressive after being labelled with MAMO deficiencies and is not pleasant for the person. Because it is their genetic makeup, this may seem like their personality is being altered when there is really only 50% variance linked to aggression. It could be useful when environmental factors pose a risk for those also with low levels of MAOA.

Many studies of genetic influences on aggressive behaviour rely on self-reports and these studies tend to show that there is a genetic link for aggression. However, observational studies have not been consistent. Miles and Carey found less genetic influence on aggression through observation than with self-reports in a meta-analysis. A replication of Bandura’s Bobo study using twins found no difference in MZ and DZ twins, suggesting that individual differences in aggression were more of a product of environmental influences than genetics (Plomin). This research suggests that many studies into MAOA are inconsistent, and the link found is unpredictable. Morley and Hall argue that genes associated with aggression only poorly predict the likelihood that an individual will display aggressive behaviour. The presence or absence of environmental factors can’t be identified in a genetic text, making the prediction of aggression even less likely. Perhaps a gene-environment interaction is a better explanation, with those who are predisposed genetically and brought up in a low socio-economic background more prone than those predisposed and brought up in a higher socio-economic environment in an area with low crime rates. If both genes and environment are not good predictor, then used in synchronisation will increase the accuracy.

The role of genetics is reductionist, as is states that aggression is caused by a single gene to make it easy to test. It ignores complex biological factors as well as psychological and environmental factors. For example, MAOA decreases low serotonin levels. Low serotonin levels are correlated with increased risk for depression. It could be that they are testing depression in males, as aggression and violence are symptoms of male depression (especially if they had suffered mistreatment as a child).  It is also determinist, showing that aggression is determined by our genes and that we can treat people with “faulty” genes. The biological approach ignores free will and this reduces individual responsibility for aggression, a significant problem when addressing an issue which is frequently dealt with in court and is harmful to society. 

24/24 Outline and Evaluate Research into Institutional Aggression

Outline and Evaluate Research into Institutional Aggression (24 marks)

Institutions are ‘structures and mechanisms of social order and co-operation governing the behaviour of a body of individuals’. Examples of these mechanism are prisons, hospitals, schools and psychiatric hospitals where large numbers are brought together and their behaviour is governed by a set of rules. Some psychologists believe that aggression within institutions occur as a result of the social context influencing their behaviour and willingness to inflict harm rather than the individual themselves. Zimbardo suggested that we should consider the factors in the situation that cause acts of evil rather than suggest people are ‘good’ or ‘bad’. This was evident in his famous prison study (1971) where ‘normal’ people such as the guard, Hellman, became extremely violent towards the prisoners because of the situation. In this experiment a sample of 24 male participants was used and each participant was given a full physical and mental evaluation to ensure full health. Participants were then randomly allocated into roles as guards or prisoners. As the participants started to get into their roles the guards became more and more controlling. Guard Hellman was found to be one of the most aggressive officers. Before Hellman had entered the experiment he had described himself as someone who loves all people. Zimbardo concluded that it was the 'situation' that had made Hellman behave the way he did. This research supports the situational explanation of aggression because it emphasises how people will act aggressively when they are in a certain situation. Paterline and Peterson put forward that the stressful conditions of the institution (overcrowding, unexperienced staff) leads to the institutional aggression that Zimbardo found in his experiment. This overcrowding, loss of rights, and powerlessness causes aggression (Steffensmeier) and is due to the patient/prisoner becoming deprived. The deprivation model suggests that this factor is the main cause of institutional aggression, with a focus lack of the needs and basic materials of the people in these establishments being severely deprived (i.e. outside contact in prisons, rights, freedom) and reacting with hostility to cope/regain these things.

Sykes investigated prison aggression in particular and found that innate behaviour is a response to the problems of adjustment posed by deprivations or ‘pains’ of imprisonment. The five deprivations were liberty, autonomy, goods/services, heterosexual relationships and security. These deprivations cause stress and frustration in prisoners and aggression is a response to release this stress. Moreover, this aggression also enables a prisoner to gain control over the oppressive social order imposed upon them. McCorkle et al (1995) conducted a large-scale study of more than 371 US state prisons to investigate the effects of environmental influences of inmate violence rates. The variables they measured were crowding, security level, officer-to-inmate ratio, program involvement, size of institution and unemployment rate of the local area around the establishment. McCorkle found that the white-black guard ratio were positively correlated to assault rates, suggesting that institutional violence is partly a racial issue and not deprivation. However, it may be that the prisoners are deprived of ‘respected’ prison guards, with white, racist prisoners being controlled by black guards of whom they don’t respect and vice versa. The study also found that poor prison management led to individual acts of violence, proving the deprivation model- with aggression being implemented when the prisoners are denied a stress-free experience- and that the removing of privileges triggered outbursts of individual violence. The more prisoners were involved with education and skills programmes, the more the decrease in institutional violence suggesting that the more prisoners were given things the less they were deprived and prone to violence. Interestingly though, overcrowding did not influence inmate-on-inmate assault rates disproving the deprivation model and showing the study to lack internal validity. Nijman also found that increasing personal space didn’t reduce the levels of violence among patients in psychiatric institutions, suggesting that this factor isn’t specific enough in its objectivity. In McCorkle’s study, the very large sample is a significant positive of this experiment, and the real-life quality and nationalism is another- the realism making it easier to generalise. Apart from the study’s findings half disproving the study, the array of variables that were measured create a rounded and comprehensive study that has accounted for the many major factors that may influence institutional aggression. However, despite its nationalism, it’s still culturally biased to the U.S.A and may not reflect prison environments from around the rest of the world. It is also supposedly androcentric, with female prisons not being mentioned and again, making it hard to generalise.

The deprivation model has much research support. Wilson studied Prison Woodhill in the early 90s and changed the environment, making it less claustrophobic, played radio sound to mask the prison sounds and reduced the too-hot temperature. These changes virtually eradicated assaults on prison staff and inmates, proving that small considerations and amendments on basic deprivations can improve violence rates. This study was conducted in a period where the situational factors in prisons would be much different to todays and therefore can’t be relied upon completely. Gaes and Macuire’s research also found that the deprivation of space, or overcrowding, led to prison violence.

There is also research on unexperienced staff. Davies and Burgess found that the length of service by prison staff affected assaults, where more experienced officers were less likely to suffer assault. In a hospital setting, Hodgkinson found a similar result. With trainee nurses more likely to suffer violent assaults than experienced nurses. These studies demonstrate that the person’s deprivation of experienced staff which, in turn, reduce the stress of the experience and make the adjustment easier, led to prison violence. However, it could be said that the inexperienced staff were easier to target their pent-up derivational aggression onto. In this case, inexperienced staff are not a deprivation for prisoners but are the easiest recipient of institutional aggression due to deprivation.

Individual differences contend with the deprivation model and pose a weakness. Kane and Janus suggest that people with serious criminal convictions are more likely to be aggressive. This suggests that the reason why individuals have been incarcerated may be the determining factor for institutional aggression. Crimes such as fraud are non-aggressive, and those who are in prison because of these crimes are less likely to become aggressive rather than those who have been convicted of assault under derivational circumstances. Poole and Regoli found that pre-institutional violence was the best indicator of violence in a juvenile detention centre regardless of situational factors. It could be said that these prisoners prone to institutional violence have initially been deprived of things (parental love, role models, attachments, basic rights and education) in early childhood or life which has led them to be imprisoned. With this in mind, it is only logical that these people will continue to be violent in a prison environment, which further deprives them of basic rights and materials to be happy. It is therefore only logical to reduce deprivation in prison to reduce violence in institutions and outside. Bastoy Island Ecological Prison in Norway is evidential. Run like a society, fostering respect and focusing on reintegrating inmates into society, with staff with social work qualifications and decent housing arrangements. The executive of this prison looks at “this place as a place of healing, not just of your social wounds but of the wounds inflicted on you by the state in your four or five years in eight square metres of high security”- or in other words deprivation in early life; and deprivation in strict institutions. This seems to have worked, with a 16% reoffending rate compared with 70% across the rest of Europe. This does have some ethical issues, with victims of the crime unhappy with a punishment that doesn’t sound too unpleasant and may find it unjust but in the long term, it is positively looked at as helping society in the long-term.

Another weakness with the studies on the deprivation model is that it is gender-biased. Male aggression is predominantly measured rather than female violence in institutions. Further research would need to be conducted to see if there is a biological factor which influences aggression. For example, males could be more prone to violence in prisons due to biological differences to females. The research also tends to originate in US prisons, and therefore the findings cannot be generalised to other institutional settings around the world.

This model is deterministic as it suggests that all people will be aggressive if they feel deprived. However, research has shown that not every person will choose to be aggressive within an institutional setting, suggesting that we do have free will. People respond to deprivation in different ways. It is also reductionist as it reduces aggressive behaviour down to feeling of deprivation- it could be said Deindividuation is the reason for institutional violence. This reductionism therefore suggests that people are blank-slates when they enter the institutional setting as it ignores the role of people’s life experiences and traits as well as their biology- some people are more chemically prone to violence than others. However, the research into deprivation can be used to reduce aggression levels in institutions. By improving the conditions of the situation, the levels of aggression should reduce. This promotes wellbeing for the staff and the patients/prisoners. The research is also adaptable to a variety of institutional settings such as schools. This model could explain why some children in schools are more aggressive than others in the playground. 

Intutionism Q and A- It just IS

INTUITIONISM- IT JUST IS

Main thinkers?

G.E Moore

Prichard

W.D Ross

What is it?

A cognitivist approach to meta-ethics which attempts to avoid the naturalistic fallacy (is to ought) and explain what good and bad is.

Why?

People reach different moral conclusions but usually reach them in a similar way. This suggests that there is an inner driving force of moral decision making.

What is good?

It is always recognisable and universal but we can’t define it. It’s like the colour yellow- it’s an adjective but we can’t describe it itself.

So we actually don’t know what good is…?

Well it’s beyond human knowledge. It’s irreducible- we need no further explanation. Good is something we can point to to make a point. It’s not pleasure or happiness but these are good.

Right…so how do we make moral judgements?

Based on our intuition of good things! We make moral decisions based on what outcome will create the most good things

Kind of like utilitarianism then… okay. Who is G.E Moore?

G.E Moore was born in 1903. He criticised naturalism for the obvious reason- we cannot use a non-moral premise to make a moral judgement. He believed that moral judgements are not proved empirically but “we recognise good things intuitively”. In fact, he had a kind of pseudo-utilitarian view- evaluating consequences in terms of basic principles.

So are there any moral truths?

There are some but they are known not provable. You can’t infinitely break down to more basic beliefs- like the colour yellow.

Who is our second person?

Pritchard. 1871-1947

Key word to kick start our memory?

Obligations

What does this mean?

If goodness is recognised by example, so are our obligations. We will intuitively know when we OUGHT to do something.

Can we define obligations?

They’re as indefinable as ‘good’, actually.

Right… what’s the role of intuition in decision making then?

It decides what to do in a situation. People get it wrong because some people’s intuition is more developed than others.

You identified two types of thinking, what are they and what do they do?

1.       Reasoning- collects data

2.       Intuition- decides what to do with the data

Obviously there are some problems with this. Give three.

Conflicting obligations, some people don’t care about obligations, which option is more enlightened?- people have different conclusions.

Who is our third person?

W.D Ross

Key word to kickstart memory?

Prima Facie duties

What did he say?

In any situation, moral duties and obligations are apparent and intuition again depends on a person’s maturity. Our choice of action is down to judgement

Are there any ethical dilemmas?

Nooooooo. One duty would always outweigh others.

That’s a bit harsh. What about the mother and her unborn child in a life or death situation!

Well in that situation we’d have to take into account prima facie duties which are universally known at face value.

Well, what are they?

Promise keeping, reparation from harm, gratitude, justice, benefice, self-improvement, non-maleficence

Is that it? What about lying to save someone’s life?

Granted they’re not complete, but your hypothetical situation would weigh up promise keeping perhaps with non-maleficence, justice, benefice, and gratitude. In this situation, you’d obviously use your judgement and lie.

What if you self-improve yourself in order to beat someone you’re jealous of?

Well something can be a right action but be done for wrong reasons. You have a personal duty.

What did Nietzsche say about intuitionism?

That it was choosing to be “ethically colour-blind” and that the disagreements were about what actions not good things in themselves.

What did MacIntyre say about intuitionism?

It’s always a “signal that something has gone badly wrong”

Are there any ethical discussions?

Not really. You can’t justify your shady intuitions so you can just continue to share them… Your own moral principles aren’t self evident

Where else can intuitions come from? Is this a strength or weakness?

God, cultural conditioning, evolution, World of the Forms. Can be compatible with the idea of a conscience.

Another two weaknesses?

People’s intuitions differ and it’s frustratingly irreducible.

There are only three strengths. What are they?

1.       Instant answer

2.       Appeals to human nature

3.       Avoids complex debate

Moore’s sassy quote:

“Good is good and that is the end of the matter”- fair

“We cannot actually define yellow”- fair

“Neither science nor religion can establish the basic principles of morality”- hmmm. They’ve done a better job than you!

Prichard’s decent quote:

“Not only goodness that is indefinable but all types of obligation”

Rating overall:

2/10

Avoids point, load of bull, vague

Explore the significance of entrapment in Gothic texts

Explore the significance of entrapment in Gothic texts

Entrapment in Gothic literature implies that escape is highly improbable, for either character or readers, and is therefore the predecessor for terror. In all Gothic texts, entrapment is highly prevalent; whether mentally or physically.

In ‘The Lady of the House of Love’, Angela Carter creates a “waiflike” Miss Havisham-like female protagonist who is both sleeping beauty and the vampiric villain from Jack and the Beanstalk. Through using these original fairy tale forms, Carter’s female villain is presented as trapped “sobbing in a derelict bedroom” but also trapping her own victims- “vous serez ma proie”. Angela Carter presents the Lady as an inverted Lady of Shallot, bound by curse to stay in the Chateaux. The “cracked mirror” later shatters and “breaks the wicked spell” as does the mirror in Tennyson’s neo-Medieval poem. This could perhaps show the Lady breaking free of the two stereotypes that she has been assigned to herself but this seems out of place with her feminist critiques as seen from her other short stories. Using allusions to the poem, it is more likely therefore that Carter is employing it to depict enlightenment. As the Lady of Shallot states she is “half sick of shadows”, the town is plagued by “too many shadows…that have no source in anything visible”. Although the Lady of Shalott is freed from the curse by love and then paid the price with her life, the Lady in this story, although now in love, is freed from her superstitious and logic-defying existence by reason- a boy entirely rational. The boy with his bicycle- “pure reason applied to motion”- is a symbol of reason who acts as a kind of enlightenment “exorcism” or “hero”. The Lady’s trapped existence in the supernatural is further shown by her description as a “cave full of echoes”. An echo is a particularly lonely sound which continues long after the sound has been made, linking to the Lady’s “perpetual repetition of their (her ancestor’s) passions”. This cave is another allusion, this time to Plato’s cave allegory which depicts a prisoner escaping from a cave of shadows and ignorance to one of enlightenment and truth. Moreover, the boy even blinds the vampiric Lady with his logical brightness- “golden light of the summer’s day”- as the sun does to the prisoner in the allegory. Angela Carter’s use of the entrapment and setting free of a supernatural vampire is her way of turning her short story into an allegory demonstrating how reason and logic can conquer vampires- “the perfect metaphor for our fears”. The acceptance and emancipation of our fears is what, paradoxically, our fears really want, the Lady wishes to be human and has “horrible reluctance for her role”. 

Although Carter is wishing to depict reason triumphing over our passionate fears, Carter’s hero retains a supernatural and illogical “souvenir” suggesting that the world can still retain and accept that something other but not let the fear of it rule us. Despite not being a feminist message, it goes without saying that the allegory can be universally taken aboard. Carter’s use of entrapment in her Gothic, allegorical short story questions whether the “Gothic eternity of the Vampires”’ “cards can fall in a new pattern”, “can a bird learn a new song?” and can the age-old fear of the unknown be emancipated for the benefit of everybody?

Carter’s feminist stance is made room for in this story through the Lady’s self- imposed entrapment. She says how who likes to hear her pet lark “announce that it cannot escape”. This is typical of the archetypal Gothic femme fatale who seems to enjoy the trapping of innocent creatures. However, she only enjoys holding power over the lark’s freedom because she herself is trapped. The metaphor for herself as a “metal woman” is apt at depicting her as a cage- a woman of bars. This shows that she is trapped of her own accord and is Carter’s vehicle for describing how women need to escape these self-made cages women have made for themselves and “learn to run with the tigers”. The Lady is said to look like a child “putting on the clothes of her dead mother in order to bring her, however briefly, back to life”. This reinforces Carter’s view that women return and dress up in old stereotypes for comfort. However this “metal woman” links directly to the boy’s description of her as a “ghost in a machine”. The boy’s rational perception of her as a “machine” or non-real metal woman completes the conception that fear has “dressed up” and become “self-articulated”- the ghost needs to be set free.

In ‘Dr Faustus’, Marlowe presents redemption and belief in God as a trap. Faustus is doomed to fail from the very start of the play, exacerbated in the morality tale structure which ensures its audience that the protagonist will be punished and his “pleasures suac’d with pain”. In the first chorus, it is said that the “heavens conspir’d his overthrow”. This implies that God planned his damned demise from the very starts- “conspired” connoting deception. This pre-planned doom is rather Calvinistic, Marlowe perhaps criticising the predestination principle and showing how Faustus was not in control of his actions at all but a mere plaything for higher orders. Faustus’ “custom is not to deny” the Duke of Vanholt, Lucifer and Mephistopheles and becomes a conjuring clown for these- “his artful sport drives all dad thought away”. Although he believes himself to be in control, he is certainly not. He is controlled and dammed whichever path he chooses to “fly”- trapped. This view of a malicious God fits in with Marlowe’s supposed atheism- believing that belief is “an illusion, fruits of lunacy”. It also presents religion as defensive and insecure, reflective of the rising challenge to religion and the disloyalty surrounding it. Faustus’ description of one particular building he sees in his devilish travelling shows that his Renaissance and radical thinking is a threat to the established, religious order- “a sumptuous temple stands which threats the stars with her aspiring top”. God and his heavens respond to this aspiring individual’s threatening existence and trap him between a rock and a hard place. As does Faustus pay for his radicalism, so later does Marlowe. Both “practice more than heavenly power permits”.

Frankenstein is entrapped within prison in chapter 21, symbolic of his entrapment by guilt and responsibility. After he is believed to be the murderer of Clerval- “ah” Beloved friend!” – Frankenstein is incarcerated in a cell in Ireland. Ironically, he is found guilty of no crimes and set free despite raving over the deaths of his family at his own hands. Frankenstein, in a “wretched mockery of justice”, is reliving what Justine must have experienced when she was wrongly convicted of murder. Frankenstein is so consumed with his “darkness that pressed around him” that he doesn’t seem to recognise this fateful working of justice, stating that “he was spared the disgrace of appearing publicly as a criminal”. “Disgrace” is the least of his worries, and he is portrayed unsympathetically here, seemingly still concerned with his image and not his past crimes or guilt. The cell he is held in also represents his internal escapeless depression. During his prolonged lamentations, he concludes that “the walls of a dungeon or a palace were alike hateful” and “a prison was as welcome residence as the divinest scene in nature”. To him, the pursuance of the monster- a living reminder of his responsibilities and guilt- has made his whole life a dungeon or form of entrapment. The fear and “unnatural horror” of this are apparently “the inmates of his breast”. This refusal to give the key to these inmates and to accept his responsibility and the Monster’s relentless pursuit for justice leads to a dramatic no-man’s land setting in the arctic which is distinctly amoral and entrapping for both characters.

Entrapment in these three texts reminds the reader that we are all captive of something we have created for ourselves. Its usage in all three texts evokes typically gothic terror and claustrophobia, and presents the reader with something ‘other’ they can find no exit from and are forced to confront.

Hume's criticisms and miracles yes/no?

Hume’s view

Briefly: 

Shouldn’t believe in miracles

“a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”

1.       “a man of such unquestioned good sense and education”

2.       “May persevere in it for the sake of holy cause” tales of surprise and wonder

3.       “ignorant and barbarous nations”

4.       Conflicting miracles

Only believe in testimony if not believing in it is more miraculous than the miracle itself

Indian Prince, pencils

Bible is a load of shit- “the falsehood of the bible, supported by such a testimony, would be more miraculous than the miracles it relates”. No one can testify that the Bible’s stories were true today

Plus side: Anthony Flew’s historical accounts. Not real physical, present account.

WEAKNESSES OF HUME:

-          - His definition of miracle is often criticised as he fails to recognise that the ‘laws of nature’ are descriptive, rather than prescriptive – they tell us what has been observed rather than telling nature what it may or may not do

-          So, if something goes against the rules of nature, it just is different from events that have previously been observed; it does not break a rule which must be obeyed and thus a ‘transgression of the laws of nature’ is not an impossibility – it is just unusual

- Swinburne: “one must distinguish between a formula being a law and one which is universally true and holds without exception”

-          His practical arguments are sweeping generalisations

-          Miracles are reported in modern western societies, contrary to what he states

-          Swinburne notes that testimonies are not the only form of evidence – what about physical evidence such as dry clothes, no boat or bridge – all signs maybe pointing to someone walking on water

-          Hume’s arguments against miracles do not therefore mean that miracles could not occur

-          Polkinghorne’s ‘new way’

-          CS Lewis: He saw naturalism are self-defeating because if we are just physical beings who are subjected to the laws of cause and effect then our decision to believe in naturalism is physically caused and we have no choice about what we believe. It is caused by physical factors.

-          Keith Ward hates him because Hume was a “notorious atheist who invented the phrase (violations of the laws of nature) to make miracles sound ridiculous”

Defending miracles:

Resurrection and Christ

Reveals God

Understood symbolically- no problem of evil, explains interactionist God. Epistemic distance needed

Hick’s eschatological verification principle

Prayer

God’s providence and action= special revelations

Rejecting miracles:

Interactionist is not omnibenevolent

Then raises question with omnipotence

God is the reason behind natural laws and therefore disasters. Has to intervene because he knows it’s not perfect vs. Abuse of free will, original sin/ Augustine- humans are to blame

Science can/ eventually will be able to explain miracles= psychological/ fakes etc.

Consider whether symbol provides any clear understanding of God

Consider whether symbol provides any clear understanding of God

Symbols are ultimately incredibly effective in communicating a clear understanding of God which is not so clear and abstract. A symbol can communicate a very complex concept that cannot be put into words into a clear visual image; which can then be universally understood. One example would be the symbol of the Dove in Christianity. The Dove is often used as the symbol for the Holy Spirit (coming to rest on Jesus’ shoulder during his baptism), a very abstract principle which many people have no clear understanding of. It is also used as a symbol of God’s peace and the salvation Christian’s are to achieve with the Holy Spirit in their souls. This is difficult to put into words and therefore a symbol like a dove can communicate a much clearer understanding.       Although some would say that only those in the religious sect would understand certain symbols (I.e. the Catholic symbol of the lighted tabernacle communicating the sacred presence of God), use of symbol can be understood outside of the “form of Life” that Ludwig Wittgenstein proposes in Language games and can then be used in wider society.

Paul Tillich (1886-1965) believed that all religious language was symbolic and communicated the most significant beliefs and values of humans- “symbolic language alone is able to express the ultimate”. God, to Tillich, is “the ground of being”- the cause for everything and the meaning behind everything and therefore should be “man’s ultimate concern”. This being cannot be known in a personal way, making the understanding of it highly unclear. However, through symbols, such as Jesus’ work, the ground of being can be revealed. He said that symbols are something we can all participate in and participate in the event themselves. For example, we participate in the feeling of unity surrounding certain national flags. Although we do not have a clear understanding in words of God, common feelings associated with religious symbols are enough to comprehend a complex concept. Music, for example, can communicate with people on a different level to words. It is a form of expression which captures a mood and communicates feelings. Non symbolic language is hard pressed to connect with people on this level, and give a clear understanding of God who evokes certain emotions rather than clear comprehension. Paul Tillich argues that symbols can open up levels of reality which are usually closed to us and consequently open up dimensions of the soul; allowing a clearer understanding of God. Like signs, they point to these new dimensions and realities- “pointing beyond themselves to something else”.

Not only do symbols provide a clear understanding of God, they are incredibly useful in the community they are normally used within on a practical level. Randall states that symbols have 4 other uses in a religious community. They arouse emotions and make people act. For example, the cross as a symbol of sacrifice and love may arouse an emotion in someone who then goes on to resolve an issue in their personal life. Symbols then stimulates and inspires community action on a wider level. Amnesty International’s candle flame is a Christian symbol which has been modified to arouse feelings and actions on a practical level. Symbols allow people to express religious experiences non-literally which can often be ineffable and therefore hard for the skeptic to accept as the truth. Lastly, it clarifies and provides a clearer understanding of our experience of God. To Randall, God as an intellectual symbol is a “ripple of imagination”, a metaphor aptly describing the positive ripple-effects a religious symbol can have.

Although they do give a clear understanding of God, symbols have been criticised to be meaningless. We don’t know whether they are true or not, William Alston argues, and they cannot be verified or falsified because of their subjective nature, Paul Edward similarly argues- they simply “can’t convey facts”. This is beside the point. Symbols do not convey religious facts, their subjective nature is what gives them personal truth and understanding. Everyone interprets God differently. The Adam and Eve story’s story be interpretated to the level of symbolism the believer personally believes in.  Although their subjectivity can be a positive, the constant reinterpretation of symbols can become a problem. The Swastika is an ancient symbol employed by many cultures such as China, Germany and England from 3000 years ago. It was a widespread symbol with an overall but culturally variant symbol of positivity; either a good luck, power, sun and life symbol. The Nazis then used this symbol incredibly powerfully to symbolise Aryan ancestry and acted as justification for horrific holocausts and certainly stimulated action and emotion. This symbol’s meaning was certainly warped.

Symbols do provide a clearer understanding of God which doesn't need to be factual or concrete. A key part of religion is the emotions involved in belief and symbols communicate something which speaks to this rather than our logic. Symbols are the most effective in providing a realistic understanding of an abstract concept which communities can work with on a practical level and share experiences. 

38/40 To what extent do you agree with the view that ‘Dr Faustus’ is more a play of spectacle than one which creates fear and apprehension?

To what extent do you agree with the view that ‘Dr Faustus’ is more a play of spectacle than one which creates fear and apprehension? 

In ‘Dr Faustus’, there are many instances where a visually striking display presents itself to the audience, an especially important aspect in a play to engage the audience, ‘Dr Faustus’’ spectacles actually seem to create fear and apprehension more effectively together, shown by the genuine belief and panic following the seemingly real appearance of the conjured devils.

One such spectacle in Marlowe’s play is the seven deadly sins pageant for Faustus’ entertainment. Initially, the entertainment focus of the scene leans more towards a spectacle. However, its use as Faustus’ entertainment creates fear, as the audience know that Lucifer is using the spectacle to bring Faustus’ wavering resolve back onto the path to hell. This behaviour is also shown by Mephistopheles in Act Two Scene One when he “fetches him somewhat to delight his mind” with the stage direction- “Aside”. By speaking exclusively to the audience, the sense of deception towards Faustus is forged. In this way, the spectacle of the seven deadly sins creates fear and apprehension, as the audience are aware that it is used as deceit. The very procession is led by a ‘piper’, complete with connotations of deceit and transgression itself. The Pied Piper of Hamelin was a prominent Medieval German legend, appearing in Goethe’s work- the later reproducer of ‘Faust’- who led children to a questionable destination with a magical pipe. This could be a reference to Mephistopheles’ commanding nature and devious intentions on Dr Faustus. But it is more likely that Marlowe has employed a piper for the leader of this transgressive spectacle to comment on a wider scale about the delusive enticement of papal supremacy (in the 16^th century) and the sins it itself encourages in its wake.

This spectacle also creates fear and apprehension within the audience by showing Faustus’ flagrant disregard for the typically medieval allegorical warning. After Lucifer and Beelzebub show him “some pastime”, Faustus replies “how this sight doth delight his soul”. Faustus’ reference to a “soul” could be taken to be ironical, in which case displaying his laughable relationship with sin. This creates apprehension within the audience, as the mention of the soul in such disregarding and entertaining terms puts Faustus in even more peril; the audience’s “Christian heart lamenting” at the inevitable end of Faustus. Especially in a Medieval morality play, this relationship between sin and man would have demonstrated a punishment at a later time. Differently, the intimidation shown by Lucifer may lead to the lines being read in a pacifying tone, though still ironic. Depending on how the scene was played, the fear and apprehension may have traversed into Faustus, making his downfall more sympathetically accessible after being bullied into sin by the devils. His weak and cowardly behaviour is further indicated to by his eager complacency to “burn his books”- either for Lucifer’s sake at his first threat, or God’s. Through the spectacle of the seven deadly sins, Marlowe allows the fear created to be adapted in different performances to different degrees and subverts the 16^th century audience’s expectations of a morality play by developing a character immune to its warnings- or a Renaissance tragic hero.

Another spectacle which reoccurs in ‘Dr Faustus’ is the conflicting angel and devil which seem to be Faustus’ conscience. It is likely that the 16^th century play would have employed actors to play the parts of both angel and devil, turning the warning of Faustus’ conscience into a striking, oppositional exhibition for the whole audience. The Globe performance even presented the two as warriors and engaged them in dramatic combat, inducing apprehension within the audience. It was predictably most unusual for an audience to see an outward externalisation of conscience in a morality play and Marlowe has likely done so to defy the robotic stock characters who seemed to lack human free will to act as a warning. Marlowe’s depiction of both good and bad in one character doomed to be condemned as an example, creates fear within the audience; Faustus becoming more accessible to the audience’s sympathy and frighteningly- their empathy. In this way, the battle between good and evil typical in a Gothic text becomes an arena in which the audience are fated to acknowledge their similarity to an uncanny, transgressive character- a frightening prospect.

Faustus’ dramatic spectacle of the good and bad angel demonstrates a fear of redemption. The bad angel says at Faustus’ moment of weakness (or strength) “repent and devils shall tear thee in pieces”. This violent and aggressive threat is then directly opposed in the next line with the good angel responding “repent and they shall never raze thy skin”. Structurally, Marlowe is particularly effective in showing direct conflict between Faustus’ rejection of God and his thirst for knowledge and his obedience to God and social values. This could perhaps reflect the changing period of the time and the conflict between the bad angel’s Renaissance idealism- to “go forward” (repeated often throughout the play)- and the good angel’s pious and somewhat oppressive state. Typically at times of social conflict the Gothic arises, and Dr Faustus is a very early example of this. The structural positioning adversely shows Faustus’ constant ignorance of his obvious chance of redemption due to fear, and his feeling of hopelessness despite the audience’s awareness of his choices reflects a Calvinistic hopelessness. Marlowe has used the good and bad angel in ‘Dr Faustus’ to demonstrate that moral dilemmas are in fact just a spectacle to Calvinism and the disastrous consequences this has on people who in turn believe that redemption is “an illusion, fruits of lunacy that make men foolish”.

Marlowe uses spectacles in ‘Dr Faustus’ to comment on social fears during the 16^th century and provide a space on stage to subvert and question authority; a Carnivalesque-ish notion. Through spectacular imagery, the play not only serves for “pastime” but fear and apprehension are a natural result, effective in turning the audience’s world upside down as a Gothic text should.

34/40 Explore some of the ways in which Mary Shelley uses different settings to contribute to Gothic effects of the novel

Explore some of the ways in which Mary Shelley uses different settings to contribute to Gothic effects of the novel

Mary Shelley’s use of settings contributes to the reader’s sense of terror, whether witnessing a horror in the creation room, sensing fearful divinity in the Alps or the apprehension of a ruined romance on a honeymoon. Through this effect, these three settings raise question with the relationship between God and man, and the redundancy of judgement in the novel.

In chapter 5, the creation room employs the liminal and pathetic fallacy to evoke a feeling of oppression.  On a “dreary night in November”, the “rain pattered dismally against the panes”. Here, pathetic fallacy is used to discern to the reader that Victor’s excursions will inevitably not have a favourable outcome, creating terror. Moreover, the fact that the rain patters “against” the windows gives a feeling of entrapment, with the weather continuing on the outside, suggesting that Victor will not be able to escape from the crime he is committing in the “workshop of filthy creation. This use of pathetic fallacy could be an indicator of God’s disapproval, further shown by the personified description of the sky as “black and comfortless”, suggesting that Frankenstein’s sins are contemptible and that he will not be able to return as one of God’s children. Interestingly, if the weather is a signal of God’s judgement, the “comfortless” nature of the sky progresses the theme of neglect in the novel. Where the monster is neglected by Victor Frankenstein, Victor is neglected by his one creator. ”. On the other hand, this place of entrapment could be perceived as a sanctuary, with the wrath of God unable to touch the confines of the study. Although this does raise question whether Victor is exempt from God’s judgment, the liminality of the “half-extinguished light” suggesting a half-finished creation, the protection from the weather and secrecy of the room maybe reflective of the creation room as a “womb”. Mary Shelley may well have utilised this setting as a womb-like sanctuary to explore the concern of science replacing God as the role of creator, and God’s ‘inability’ to interfere. However, this claustrophobic setting may be reflective of Shelley’s post natal depression, having been pregnant for the duration of the writing process. The description of the creation room as a “cell” reflects Mary’s view of her life like living in a “dungeon”. Moreover, the personification of the “instruments of life” which are “gathered around”, depicts a sense of loneliness, perhaps felt by both Frankenstein and Mary Shelley. The rain-drenched, liminal quality of the creation room gives an effect of oppression, questioning God’s power of judgement and exploring the view that the sanctuary of motherhood is more a prison.

The Swiss Alps contributes to the sense of the sublime in ‘Frankenstein’, giving perspective and reminding both characters and readers of a divine role. The “immense mountains and precipices” and “mighty Alps” are used to overwhelm Victor Frankenstein, and remind him of his immateriality in comparison to the rest of nature and, perhaps, God. The sublime is a liminal threshold where the divine and mortal are closer- reminding the characters of the limitations of being human; something Frankenstein lacks.  This threshold therefore acts as an equalizer between the characters, with both Victor and the monster being reduced to mere mortals no matter how they came into being. The unparalleled power of the sublime is further shown by the description of the Alps as “belonging to another earth, the habitants of another race of beings”, perhaps indicative of Mount Olympus or even Victor’s arrogance, believing that he is a Promethean demi-God. His fall as a Promethean tragic hero and the burden of his crimes are predicted by the setting, the Alps also being grotesquely depicted. The abject nature of the trees “lying broken and strewed on the ground; some entirely destroyed, others bent” has connotations of mangled corpses, referencing the Monster’s murders of everyone Victor Frankenstein loves. However, it could show Frankenstein’s arts in the creation room and perhaps foreshadow his ruined creation of the monster’s bride later on in the novel.  Even in the Alps, something Victor found comfort in, his crimes are reflected in the barren setting, an effect Shelley has employed to contribute to Frankenstein’s guilt and add apprehension for the reader.

During Victor Frankenstein and Elizabeth’s honeymoon, light is employed to create an obscure and liminal setting which evokes terror and portrays a cynicism of Romance. A “transitory light” unfolds the newlywed’s story from joy to despair in the course of a night, and creates a (non-nuptial) threshold which creates apprehension for Elizabeth’s murder.  The unknown and nightmarish quality of the setting “obscured in darkness, yet still displaying their black outlines” creates a sense of terror and tension for the reader; the monster is lurking outside. Shelley also seems to be mocking romance, “the pale yellow light of the moon”- usually possessing romantic connotations- seems out of place, mocking Victor’s unfortunate situation. The “pale yellow” quality of it rather suggests waxy ill health than romance, foreshadowing Elizabeth’s death very soon afterwards. Although the supernatural quality of the moon in this setting has Victor in a “kind of panic”, it may be the romance that panics him.  In earlier chapters, he communicates his dread for the union as a “terrible marriage”. Although this could be because of the monster’s threat that he will be “there on your wedding night”, Frankenstein could be more terrified of the prospect of consummating his marriage with his “more than sister”. The light in the honeymoon setting aptly creates terror through obscurity, not only for the apprehension of the monster’s murder, but also for Victor’s fear of romance- due to his unknown sexuality and especially as the embodiment of the enlightenment in the 18^th century.

In conclusion, Shelley uses different settings to create terror, the main purpose of a Gothic noel- “to curdle the blood and quicken the beatings of the heart”. The use of the liminal, the sublime and obscurity explores the changing relationship between God and man in an era where science was influencing spirituality and Shelley’s views on motherhood.  

36/40 To what extent do you agree with the view that the humans are more monstrous than the monster in ‘Frankenstein’?

To what extent do you agree with the view that the humans are more monstrous than the monster in ‘Frankenstein’?

The humans in Frankenstein are much less sympathised with in Frankenstein, being of unlikable or unrealistic dispositions and although cruel to the Monster, are not monstrous. Although the monster commits terrible crimes, it is a result of an unloving society which makes him apparently ‘monstrous’, and his sympathetic portrayal makes it likely that it was Mary Shelley’s intention to depict society as monstrous, rather than any character in particular.

 The cruelty shown to the Monster could suggest that ‘humans are more monstrous than the monster’. He is unnamed, going by “wretch”, “devil” and “fiend”, and dehumanised- leading to his ‘monstrosity’. He has no true identity except that he is his maker’s creation- perhaps alluding to the feelings Mary Shelley has about her own identity and that of her infamous mother’s. The Monster then states that he will refuse to be the “abject of slavery”. During the 18^th century, Mary Shelley had witnessed the cruelty shown to African slaves in Bristol. The monster is therefore also a voice for these people in history, lacking freedom and also dehumanised. However, this term is used when persuading Victor Frankenstein to make him a mate “as hideous” as himself. Likening himself to a slave may well have been used as a rhetoric to appeal to Victor’s ego; that Victor is his master and God, the creature the slave making a base request. Victor doesn’t grant the monster his only wish, as God has granted all other creatures out of sympathy. Here, Victor is portrayed as ‘monstrous’. The monster, as an infant, is “bruised by stones” thrown at him by a village. This cruelty shown by humans is unwarranted, having been judged solely on appearance and having committed no crime. This prosecution based on his ‘monstrous’ appearance happens throughout the novel, emphasised by Frankenstein’s immediate abandonment and the character of the blind man as the only one who accepts him. Mary Shelley criticises humanity’s obsession with aesthetics through the unjust penalisation of the monster. “Bruised by stones” also has religious imagery- alluding to Christ’s betrayal and prosecution. The Monster is abandoned by his creator and prosecuted much like Christ is apparently abandoned by his Father and crucified. By the end of the novel, Frankenstein identifies with ‘Paradise Lost’ s Satan. The monstrous nature of humanity is seen even to turn God’s son into a demon.

It could be said that the monster is the most monstrous, murdering and destroying everything dear to his creator or that angers him. Justine, “grateful little creature”, William, a “smiling babe”, Elizabeth, “living gold” and “self-sacrificing”, are all murdered by the monster’s own hands. William dies with “the print of the murderer’s finger…on his neck”. A print suggests an immovable, permanent mark maybe on the monster’s conscience- being labelled as a “devil” forever- or even on Frankenstein’s conscience- these murders are an immovable stain on his life too. The theme of responsibility is explored using these deaths in Frankenstein, questioning whether the parent or offspring is to blame for a crime. Perhaps it is Frankenstein who is the most monstrous, failing to love and care for his creation. Furthering this interpretation, these characters are all flat and stereotypical- The women are all idolised and common to the Gothic stereotype of victim and domestic, William likened to a cherub. These characters therefore do not ring true, and the readers are not especially sympathetic. The effect of their deaths on the readers and, strangely, Frankenstein are muted by second-hand accounts of their deaths through letters and being smoothed over. Because of the lack of realism in these stereotypes, it is likely that it was not Shelley’s intention for us to sympathise with them. Instead allowing us to maintain our feelings for the Monster despite his horrendous crimes. Conclusively, the deaths of the minor characters do not make the monster more monstrous and the monster could therefore be more human than the humans, being the least flat and more realistic.

The issue of responsibility in Frankenstein questions whether the monster is more monstrous than the humans; the definition of monstrous as “inhumanly evil or wrong”. Frankenstein’s narrative begins with a childlike tone, expressing vulnerability and nativity at the world- “a poor, helpless, miserable wretch” who “weeps”. He gazes “with a kind of wonder” at the sun and has “no distinct ideas”. His first few moments on earth are marked with infantile awe at all things he experiences. His voice evokes sympathy within the readers as well as blame; Victor’s abandonment of his creature is made more unforgivable.  This abandonment and lack of parental love later fuels his resentment and hopelessness- “I ought to be thy Adam”. This could be an echo of Mary Shelley’s feelings of abandonment towards her dead mother, who she had never met yet was still widely acclaimed- strangers knew her own mother more than she did herself.  The rage felt by the monster makes him commit the murders of innocent people. However, he is not “inhumanly evil”. The deaths, arguably, are a result of a lack of human nurture and responsibility. In the monster’s voice, the voices of neglected children are often heard, and so the crimes he commits as a response to this treatment can never be inhuman. Shelley is exploring whether a criminal is born or made, the dehumanisation and bad treatment of the monster acting as the motor for his ‘monstrous’ actions.

Mary Shelley’s use of the Sublime is proficient in communicating to the reader that in fact, humans are as monstrous as the monster. The monster’s perception of the sublime is very similar to Frankenstein’s. At the monster’s first experience of the sun, he “gazes with a sense of wonder”, and his delight at a spiritually restorative spring is similar to Victor’s after his first bout of illness- the “divine spring…contributed greatly to my convalescence”.  The sublime is a place which both Victor and The Creature experience. The sublime is a liminal threshold where the divine and mortal are closer- it reminds the characters of the nature and limitations of being human. In this way, the sublime acts as an equalizer between the characters, with both Victor and the monster being reduced to mere humans no matter how they came into being or their transcendent aspirations.

The use of the Doppelgänger trope, conventional to the Gothic, also reminds the reader that the Monster is not as abhuman as he appears- and that the monstrosity of the monster is just an extension of Victor. Victor’s need to “pour a torrent of light into our dark world” using science, his desire for isolation and intellect contrasts the monster’s need for love, society and his desire to be human. This duality of human nature is used to “speak to the mysterious fears of our nature”, the monster represents Victor’s unaccepted, darker and ‘monstrous’ side of himself in the eyes of society. Mary Shelley employs intertextuality within Frankenstein to show how this side of his character haunts Victor in a physical manifestation. In Chapter Five, Victor quotes Coleridge’s ‘The rime of The Ancient Mariner’ to communicate Victor’s feelings of dread evoke feelings of terror within the reader; “because he knows a frightful fiend doth close behind him tread”. Although demonstrating the fear of his doppelgänger, this reference could contrastingly drive the theme of responsibility home. Frankenstein, like the mariner, leaves behind his responsibilities and runs away from his human duties. In this instance, Frankenstein is more monstrous than the monster and that the creature himself is only a produce of this lack of care.

Frankenstein does not have any ‘monstrous characters’, only misled and ‘miserable’ ones. I feel that even if you could argue that there are, they are as monstrous as each other. One of the main objects of the novel is to warn the readers of the dangers of being human- responsibility and ambition for example- and Mary Shelley leaves blame ambiguous in order to allow the reader to question their own morality and society. 

37/40 Faustus describes Mephistopheles as a “bewitching fiend”. How far do you agree with this view of him?

Faustus describes Mephistopheles as a “bewitching fiend”. How far do you agree with this view of him?

‘Dr Faustus’’ Mephistopheles is undoubtedly a “bewitching fiend”, a manipulative and spell-binding showman with a host of enchanting tricks up his sleeve. However, this “bewitching” quality may not lie in Mephistopheles, but in what he symbolises for Faustus. In this way, Faustus may be more bewitched by power than Mephistopheles himself, for example. Being bewitched also takes the blame off of the individual and onto the supernatural perpetrator. The audience can then begin to question whether Faustus had autonomy over his actions or whether fiendish puppetry was involved.

Mephistopheles’s bewitching nature may be hiding an unsympathetic salesman. This is demonstrated in Act Two scene 2, when Faustus is making his deal with Lucifer. After Faustus’ “blood congeals and can write no more”, Mephistopheles returns with “fire to dissolve it straight”; a business-like and practical suggestion which implies it has happened before. Faustus comes to realise this currency of souls too late, before he is dragged to hell in Act Five Scene Two. Faustus explains to the scholars that he wrote the devils “a bill” and the “date is expired”. The language of currency and business transactions in regards to the soul may have been critiquing the money involved with religion, especially Catholicism, during the Elizabethan reign. The pomposity and greed shown by Pope Adrian demonstrates this, using souls and religion for gain of wealth- “to condemn or judge, resign or seal or whatso pleaseth us”. Especially with Marlowe’s supposed role in the spying of Catholics, this critique would have been likely. This circulation of souls in ‘Dr Faustus’ may also be interrogating the confusion of loyalty with religion, being passed from one to another and therefore reducing its intrinsic human value. Arguably, Mephistopheles is presented as bewitching in order to accompany his salesman antics on Faustus’ soul and express Marlowe’s censored opinions on a fractured, secular culture.

Mephistopheles is not the “bewitching fiend” but rather the physical pleasure he can “cloy” Faustus with are. Mephistopheles often conjures bewitching specters after Faustus displays a wavering resolve, possessing the effect of swaying him back onto the path of hell. Mephistopheles’ last conjuring before Faustus is dragged into “gaping hell” is of Helen of Troy, a Succubus who certainly is bewitching. Faustus states that “heaven is in these lips”, a romantic but ironic statement for the audience who know that the succubus has nothing divine about her; quite the opposite. The morality play form of ‘Dr Faustus’ ensures the audience would have known that the more Faustus engages with the succubus, the more assured his path to hell is guaranteed- creating a feeling of terror. Heaven for Faustus is in something tangible and sexual, rather than something metaphysical. Faustus’ knowledge of Helen of Troy as a succubus is shown with his exclamation- “Her lips suck forth my soul, see where it flies”. The soul “flying” is a direct contrast to the saintly Old Man he has encountered and tormented earlier in the scene (Act Five Scene One), whose soul “flies unto God” and Faustus own usage of the word turns it into something sexual rather than sacred. However “flying” does imply a sense of freedom, suggesting that Faustus feels emancipated on earth rather than through God, a Renaissance humanist view that allowed the mind to expand without the weight of the spiritual holding it back. This wedding of the sacred and profane, and the emphasis on freedom also points to ‘Dr Faustus’ implementation of the Carnivalesque which would have been especially effective in the play-format, allowing a place of subversion on stage and showing Faustus’ obsession with the sensual. Faustus’ soul is hopelessly bewitched by the empirical pleasures he finds on earth that Mephistopheles can give him (subsequently portraying Mephistopheles as bewitching)- a humanist approach that dominated Renaissance thinking.

Perhaps, Dr Faustus finds the idea of wealth and power bewitching rather than Mephistopheles. Before Mephistopheles even exchanges words with the scholar in Act One Scene Three, Faustus orders the devil to “change thy shape” and is impressed by his obedience. He is delighted by how “pliant is this Mephistopheles”. “Pliant” suggests something yielding and easily shaped, demonstrating Faustus’ naïve belief that he will be in complete power of this fiend. Pliancy also has very physical connotations, again demonstrating Faustus’ need to feel tangible power rather than something illusory, which we later know to be the extent of his power over the devil. This need for power is depicted in the same scene when the devil has exited, “by him I’ll be great emperor of the world”. Faustus, therefore, sees Mephistopheles as a passage to power (“by him”) which he finds bewitching.

Although it is depicted at first that Faustus is more bewitched by the promise of power and wealth, as the play progresses we see a relationship develop between the two. Mephistopheles and Faustus refer to each other in possessive terms- “my good Mephistopheles”, “My Faustus” suggesting a hidden power play between the two- with both believing they are in possession of each other. Although Mephistopheles promises wryly that he will “be thy slave and wait on thee”, Faustus treats him more as a friend than servant- he even thanks the fiend after doing his bidding; “thanks, Mephistopheles”. However, this developing relationship may be more effective in depicting a bewitching homoerotic relationship between the two characters. Following a confusing battle with his conscious, and his devil predictably triumphing, Faustus states that he would have “dispatched himself” had not “sweet pleasure conquer’d deep despair” and “made music with my Mephistopheles”. “Making music” is an undoubtedly romantic gesture and also a sexual one, suggesting that Mephistopheles’ bewitching sexuality is a determining factor in whether he turns his back on salvation. Differently, Mephistopheles may be considered his salvation. In Act 2 Scene 1, Mephistopheles presents Faustus with tricks and states that he will “do greater things that these”. This line has a direct link to Jesus in John stating that “whoever believes in me will do works I have been doing and they will do even greater things than these”. This synoptic link to the Bible presents Mephistopheles as a subverted Christ-like figure and Faustus’ bewitching false messiah, leading him arguably to destruction rather than “eternal joys”.

Although Mephistopheles himself responds that yes, he “does confess it…and rejoice” that he was the spell that put Faustus under satanic influence; it is to give him too much credit. Firstly, Faustus places the blame on Mephistopheles in a tension-charged and desperate Act 5, directly after confessing to the scholars that he himself “hath done it”. His autonomy is discredited in extreme fear. Secondly, Mephistopheles’ arguably did not bewitch Faustus, but the temptation of physical pleasure and power. And lastly, Faustus’ pride and overreaching nature as a tragic flaw led him to take the path of sin before Mephistopheles even appeared in the play. Mephistopheles was merely a showy distraction from what Faustus knew and refused to accept all along. All in all, Mephistopheles “turn’d the leaves and led thine eye” but Faustus opened the book of his own initiative.