Natural and Civil Rights: Paine and Handlin

As far as I am concerned, though they are not always upheld to the fullest extent of which they should be, America was founded on the same ideas as those of Paine and Handlin. Thomas Paine alone had a tremendous impact on the evolution of this country. While the United States was still in a state of infancy, Common Sense was a widespread phenomenon- addressing rather profound yet obvious points. Also, the concept of natural rights has maintained a strong hold in this country since its creation. The Declaration of Independence makes this apparent with it’s ending statement, that every individual has the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” all of which would be considered ‘God-given’ rights. Not only that, but civil rights are addressed as well, stating that, “All men are created equal.” So why then, are these concepts of natural and civil rights even debatable? Why is it that a country founded on the recognition of these natural rights struggles still to uphold them? Why is it that a country who clearly says that, “All men are created equal,” has struggled through a Civil War, the civil rights movement, the women’s suffrage movement, and others? Why is it that lower class immigrants have been taken advantage of and have been neglected these same rights? Why is socio-economic status so debilitating, and the cycle of poverty nearly impossible to escape? What do these movements have in common with the views of Paine and Handlin? It is civil disobedience- the belief that people have a responsibility to be loyal to themselves and struggle to uphold and fight for these God-given rights in which they are being denied. A government sometimes struggles to maintain public order, and what they would consider to be a state of ‘peace’. Unfortunately, so often it seems that rather than public order or so sublime an ideal of peace- that they are struggling to maintain an illusion. Thoreau wrote a great deal on civil disobedience, and he was not the first or last to say, “That government is best which governs least.” I agree with this, and I also believe that the government’s inevitable desire for control correlates with Handlin’s relation of ship masters and captains to Plato’s ‘players’. It is often said that there is so much going on within the government that we will never know, if for no other reason than to prevent widespread panic and paranoia. Nonetheless, we are manipulated through mass media and other outlets everyday, sometimes blatantly, but more often than not very subtly- unaware that we are even being influenced. Take the current presidential campaign for example, politicians often disgust me, even the most initially sincere tend to sell-out. There is little to no authenticity in the world of politics, and I find this to be very dangerous. The political world is a show, and these politicians are all tap dancers putting on a show- ventriloquist dolls and puppets, having others speak for them and pulling their strings. Illusions, used to manipulate the citizens of a noble country who do not deserve to be lied to. The government promotes ideas of patriotism and nationalism, which will aid in the blind following of their ideals rather than the truer concept of what is right, and morally appeasing to all; no matter what race, religion, nation, et cetera. The bureaucrats of today act as players, and these shadows of the images they present us with, are often oppressing- diversions which distract us from the truth. The “American Dream” for example, an illusion, a perfectly crafted ideal in which we are conditioned to not just live up to, but to desire to do so. And why is this- because it fits in perfectly to the scheme of Christian conservative capitalism. If we were however, to realize this, to acknowledge it and more importantly to react to it, than perhaps we could break free of this conditioning. I feel that there are many more revolutions in the future of America. There are many more obstacles to overcome, and unfortunately the fight for freedom and life and happiness for all may never be concluded. It is those simple and obvious teachings of those like Paine and Handlin that are simple and obvious yes, but are profound in the sense that they provide us with recognition of what we all ready know to be true. They cause us to want to defend these rights at all costs. So long as we maintain awareness, and choose to see through the illusions- so can we do a much finer job at upholding these natural and civil rights, not only for ourselves, but for all of humanity.

12 Angry Men in Relation to Plato

12 Angry Men in Relation to Plato

“To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images-”

It is my opinion that the concepts presented in the plot of 12 Angry Men can best be correlated with the concepts presented in Plato's The Allegory of the Cave. While the concepts of The Allegory of the Cave are metaphorical, they can very easily be related to those that are literal in 12 Angry Men. Both stories are about social conflict, and minority influence. They both present ideas about enlightenment and truth; exposing the danger and irresponsibility that can be found so often in collective thinking. Maybe it is also possible that because the main character of 12 Angry Men (Juror #8) uses the Socratic method of inquiry to change the minds of the others, perhaps this is why I find it easy to relate the writings of Plato (having been a student of Socrates) to the theme of 12 Angry Men.

Both the main characters in The Allegory- as well as in 12 Angry Men seem to have much in common with each other. Juror #8 was the only juror who initially did not vote guilty, stating that he could not send a boy off to die without at least further deliberation. He took a noble stand, and it was his composure, logical analysis, and inquisition of accuracy and reliability which sets the stage for the rest of the story. He determined that there was a 'reasonable doubt' in his mind that the boy may not be guilty, and despite the brash and angry criticisms of his fellow jurors, he did not abandon his stance on the matter. Also, when the other jurors voted guilty, leaving him the minority in an 11 to 1 vote- he could have chosen to go with the status quo, but refused to give in as a means to an end. What differentiates this particular juror from the others, is that he saw their decision as a responsibility to justice which he was not willing to sacrifice. Because of this, the juror found himself using minority influence to slowly change the minds of the majority, through the consistency in his arguments but also the grace in which he embraced the other jurors way of thinking. In The Allegory of the Cave upon his return, the prisoner who had escaped also faced a grueling majority and their differing outlook, finding himself in a similar situation and moral dilemma. Just as Juror #8 did not blindly conform, in truth and reason there is no turning back, just as in The Allegory Plato states, “Imagine once more, I said, such as one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?”

The cave in the story represents a prison, a confined area in which the people know nothing outside of. In relating the cave itself to 12 Angry Men it does not exist in a physical sense, but again in a metaphorical sense- a frame of mind. The cave represents the box, as in- the jurors were confined in their own shallow thinking, and therefore were not thinking 'outside the box'. The main character of The Allegory wandered up and outside of the cave, just as the main character of 12 Angry Men was the only one to 'think outside of the box'. Though both had a larger perspective on truth and reality, they had a difficult time attempting to present this perspective to the others (the prisoners/ those not thinking outside the box). Just as the other jurors thought that Juror #8 was being absurd, so did the prisoners of the cave: “And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the den, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous?”

The main character of The Allegory tried to show the other prisoners that the shadows they saw were not realities; that they were only illusions and that their focus on them and not beyond them was denying them of the truth. “If a prisoner says “That’s a book” he thinks that the word “book” refers to the very thing he is looking at. But he would be wrong. He’s only looking at a shadow. The real referent of the word “book” he cannot see. To see it, he would have to turn his head around.” In 12 Angry Men the evidence in the case can also be viewed as shadows. The evidence is one perception, but that does not necessarily mean that is the correct perception, nor does it mean that it is even relevant. Juror #8 felt an obligation to 'save' the other jurors from presumed truths, and to open their eyes to other possibilities, all the while with respect to their own views, beliefs, and even blind assumptions. This same attitude of empathy was also demonstrated in The Allegory, as the freed prisoner chooses willingly to go back and attempt to enlighten and 'free' the other prisoners, even against all odds.

At the beginning of 12 Angry Men after the judge dismisses the jurors from the court room in order to go deliberate, he first says this; “If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused, a reasonable doubt, then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty. If however, there is no reasonable doubt, then you must in good conscience find the accused guilty. However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous. In the event that you find the accused guilty, the bench will not entertain a recommendation for mercy. The death sentence is mandatory in this case. You are faced with a grave responsibility. Thank you, gentlemen.” As I said, Juror #8 was the only man who did not jump to conclusions and hence, the only man who took the responsibility as seriously as it is intended. After the prisoner in The Allegory breaks free, he embraces that freedom, but yet feels obligated still to go back and try to free the others. Here freedom and responsibility are not antonymous by any means, as there is a responsibility within freedom. What the two characters in both stories share, is summed up in the teachings of both Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, with the argument that- “Freedom requires moral courage.”