National Duty When is it OK to disobey orders? At what point does duty come second to personal feelings and opinion? Is it acceptable to set aside your national duties and lend a helping hand your fellow man? Comparing the short story "Guests of the Nation" to the play "The Rising of the Moon" we find that both authors view these questions differently. We as readers are given two different situations where the main characters are each faced with a difficult choice. The characters will have to choose to follow orders or make the unpopular choice and go against them. In “Guests of the Nation” the author illustrates how heavily national affiliation can weigh on a person and how hard it can be to follow through with orders that go against …show more content…
moral reasoning. The story shows the negative side of Nationalism and it's effect on relationships. The winds of war greatly influence the sense of national duty, and can sometimes force us into doing things we normally would not. The story starts off with a introduction of the relationship between two foreigners and two countrymen. We gather from the way the four interact and learn from one another, that their bonds are strong and genuine. " At dusk the big Englishman Belcher would shift his long legs out of the ashes and ask, 'Well, chums, what about it?' and Noble or me would say, 'As you please, chum' (for we had picked up some of their curious expressions)"(51) this gives insight to the closeness of the group. The four formed a bond despite their differences and complicated circumstance. The author further defines this relationship as a bond formed over playing cards and debates of religious beliefs. "I couldn't at the time see the point of me and Noble being with Belcher and 'Awkins at all, for it was and is my fixed belief you could have planted that pair in any untended spot from this to Claregalway and they'd have stayed put and flourished like a native weed."(52) Although Belcher and Hawkins fit in with the country, they still were under watch and held captive as enemies. Informing the reader that Belcher and Hawkins are prisoners of war changes the meaning of their friendship with Noble and the Bonaparte. But it also adds a expiration date to the relationship as well. Bonaparte and Noble at times believe that there is no reason to guard the two prisoners. Until they are brought up to speed by Jeremiah Donovan and his plans for the two Englishmen. " He looked at me for a spell and said, 'I thought you knew we were keeping them as hostages' 'Hostages — ?' says I, not quite understanding. 'The enemy', he says in his heavy way, 'have prisoners belong to us, and now they talk of shooting them. If they shoot our prisoners we'll shoot theirs, and serve them right."(54) The news of this saddens Bonaparte and Noble. They even discuss if telling Belcher and Hawkins would be appropriate or not. Later, they decide against it believing the time of execution would not come to pass. The weight of duty to their Country vs being a loyal friend causes an internal battle inside of Bonaparte. Should he allow them to escape or should he follow orders and kill them in the name of his Country? The two are faced with the situation of obeying orders by ending the lives of two friends or save them. Jeremiah Donovan informs Bonaparte and Noble there were four of their fellow soldiers shot by the English, he asks the two of them to gather Belcher and Hawkins with instructions to lead them to the bog.
This is when the story takes a turn towards the climactic ending. Although both Bonaparte and Noble opted out of luring the Englishmen. They follow orders and accompany them to the bog, where Belcher and Hawkins are to be executed. After Belcher and Hawkins gained conformation that they are about to be put to death, Hawkins begins to ask questions about the state of their friendship. “Why did any of us want to plug him? What had he done to us? Weren't we all chums? Didn't we understand him and didn't he understand us?”(56) This proves that not only was the bond real but that it was equal on both sides. Hawkins continues on to ask if the roles were reversed did Bonaparte or Noble believe for an instant that he would shoot them, Hawkins says that he would never be able to shoot a friend. Bonaparte and Noble feel that they are in no position to argue on their behalf and remain silent. Forced to follow orders, both men watch as Belcher and Hawkins are executed by the hands of Donovan. O'Connor places a great deal of importance of having love for all humanity from the remorse shown by Bonaparte and Noble for the death their friends. We gain a sense of O'Connor's empathy towards the two characters. This shows that viewing the world in regions and territories can have painful
repercussions. In comparison " the rising moon" takes a different approach to the subject of nationalism, this play gives the reader the idea that you will not be received well by society if you just follow orders and ignore the national ties to your country. The play begins with three officers searching for a criminal on the loose. "POLICEMAN X. And if we get him itself, nothing but abuse on our heads for it from the people, and maybe from our own relations." (902) This tells us that the criminal is no ordinary bust but his capture would possibly lead to backlash from the community as well as family and friends, since the criminal is being brought to justice by his own countrymen under the orders of a foreign rule. After placing a notice on a barrel, the sergeant finds a staircase leading to the water, afraid of the criminal escaping by boat, he offers to stand watch. As the sergeant begins to contemplate the reward for the criminal's apprehension, a man approaches. A poor ballad singer by the name of Jimmy Walsh attempts to use the staircase. Unable to pass, the man continues to make small talk with the sergeant, after a few witty exchanges the man reveals that he knows the criminal on the notice. The man gives a brief description of the wanted criminal and informing how dangerous he is, and the man offers to sit and help keep watch. The two share a match and light their pipes and engage in deeper conversation. The Sergeant explains that police officers face many dangers, yet receive little to no appreciation from the people they protect. Policemen have become unpopular just for following orders and doing their duty to uphold the law. Knowing this, the Sergeant is unfulfilled in his career and is tired of being viewed in a negative light. Due to him being an enforcer of foreign laws he is met with criticism, and he wants appreciation and acceptance from his countrymen. The night goes on, and the two men find a patch of common ground over a ballad being sung by the man. The man is surprised to know that the Sergeant knows such songs, so he responds by telling the man that there are many things that he knows but does not care for. This invites the man to ask many questions about the Sergeant's past life before he became a police officer. The Man asks about the types of songs the Sergeant sang and the type of company he kept during his youth. We gather from this exchange that the Sergeant lead a completely different life before he became a husband and father, possibly meaning the Sergeant set aside his national beliefs for a career and money, also suggesting that under different circumstances the Sergeant may have been the one with his photo on the notice instead. The Man makes a comment that maybe at one point the Sergeant's loyalties were with the people and not with the law, he disregards the man's statement by simply saying he was foolish back then but that time is gone. The Sergeant is still torn between the people of his country and his duties toward the foreign rule of the English. This idea comes from the knowledge of his past and how he seems to be looking for the acceptance and appreciation from the people of his country. The conversation between the men becomes heated after the Sergeant finds the need to defend his position as a Officer of the law. The Man asks if thoughts of following Granuaile come into the Sergeant's mind despite his occupation, he also hints that the Sergeant will be on the side of the country yet again. Annoyed, the Sergeant responds by telling that he has his duties and he knows them. After this exchange the Sergeant realizes that the Man he had shared a conversation over pipe smoke with was no poor ballad singer. The Man removes his disguise and informs the Sergeant that he is indeed the criminal on the placard whom the officers are looking for. The two have a short exchange which leaves the Sergeant unsure how to handle this new development. The Sergeant faces the same dilemma he has been battling with the entire play. Should he help fellow countrymen or continue to follow orders given by the English? Hearing the the voices of the two officers that accompanied the Sergeant before, the man takes cover behind the barrel. The officers arrive giving the Sergeant many opportunities to turn the man in but he doesn't, the Sergeant makes the choice to let the man escape. Going against his orders by not capturing the man shows a major change in the officer, siding with his countryman, proves his nationalist views are still present. After being thanked by the man, the Sergeant reads reward on the placard one last time and asks if he is as big a fool as he thinks he is. The two Authors place different importance on nationalism. While Frank O'Connor's message is not to trade in your morals or love for humankind just because of your national affiliation, Lady Gregory views nationalism as a means to say never forget your country or your people. Guests of the Nation tells us that taking care of your fellow man should always come first, that no matter where someone is from we are all people and that life is precious. The Rising of The Moon teaches us that no matter how impossible a situation may appear, never give up or turn your back on your Nation or countrymen, if you do, you will loose the respect of your neighbors and your family. We all have our own views on the subject of nationalism, and these two works of literature are great examples of both sides of the fence.
Reynolds, Larry. “Patriot and Criminals, Criminal and Patriots.” South Central Review. Vol 9, No. 1.
Holton, Woody. Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution. New York: Hill and Wang, 2007.
The power of blind obedience taints individuals’ ability to clearly distinguish between right and wrong in terms of obedience, or disobedience, to an unjust superior. In the article “The Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal: Sources of Sadism,” Marianne Szegedy-Maszak discusses the unwarranted murder of innocent individuals due to vague orders that did not survive with certainty. Szegedy-Maszak utilizes the tactics of authorization, routinization, and dehumanization, respectively, to attempt to justify the soldiers’ heinous actions (Szegedy-Maszak 76-77). In addition, “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You” by Theodore Dalrymple distinguishes between blind disobedience and blind obedience to authority and stating that neither is superior;
The soldiers at My Lai were in an environment conducive to obeying orders. They have been trained to follow the orders of their commanders; respect for authority is weighed heavily upon. It is hard for them to disobey because they have been integrated into the social structure of the military and when in the middle of a war they would have nowhere to turn if they choose to disobey the orders of their commanders. The consequences of disobedience for them could be sent to death. A classic example of the power of authoritative factors is provided by Stanley Milgram’s
More specifically, the movie A Few Good Men depicts the results of blindly obeying orders. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, also explores obedience to authority in his essay “ The Perils of Obedience”. On the other hand, Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst and philosopher, focused on disobedience to authority in his essay “ Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem.” Milgram wrote about how people were shockingly obedient to authority when they thought they were harming someone else while Fromm dissected both: why people are so prone to obey and how disobedience from authoritative figures can bring beneficial changes for society. Obeying commands, even when they go against our morals, is human nature; Disobeying commands, however, is challenging to do no matter what the situation is.
Davidson, J. W., Delay, B., et al. (2005). Nation of nations: a narrative history of the American Republic (6th ed., Vol. 2). Boston: McGraw Hill.
Obedience has always been a trait present in every aspect of society. Parents have practiced enforcing discipline in their homes where children learn obedience from age one. Instructors have found it difficult to teach a lesson unless their students submit to their authority. Even after the adolescent years, law enforcement officers and governmental officials have expected citizens to uphold the law and abide by the standards set in society. Few will understand, however, that although these requirements for obedience provide positive results for development, there are also dangers to enforcing this important trait. Obedience to authority can be either profitable or perilous depending on who the individual in command is. In the film, The Crucible,
The central idea is that man is responsible for defining his own sense of honor. A clear choice between right and wrong does not always exist. The safest decision is not always the easiest to live with. What Dubus seems to be commenting on is the transformation of man as he grows older. At an older age, you learn to accept things you cannot change.
Obedience is a widely debated topic today with many different standpoints from various brilliant psychologists. Studying obedience is still important today to attempt to understand why atrocities like the Holocaust or the My Lai Massacre happened so society can learn from them and not repeat history. There are many factors that contribute to obedience including situation and authority. The film A Few Good Men, through a military court case, shows how anyone can fall under the influence of authority and become completely obedient to conform to the roles that they have been assigned. A Few Good Men demonstrates how authority figures can control others and influence them into persuading them to perform a task considered immoral or unethical.
Works Cited Bartlett, Donald L. and Steele, James B. EMPIRE. New York, W. W. Norton & Company. 1979. Drosnin, Michael. Citizen Hughes: In His Own Words. New York, Holt, Tinch and Winston. 1985.
... Belcher and Hawkins remain at ease, thinking themselves safe. In the end both Hawkins' futile appeal to the friendship of his "chums" and Belcher's resignation serve to emphasize the horror of the executions.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2004. Romance, Joseph. Political Science 6 class lectures. Drew University, Summer 2004.
In closing, W.D Howells is successful in his use of these methods of argument. “Editha” paints a clear picture of the men who must fight and the people who casually call for war. He proves Editha’s motives are unworthy of devotion. After all, it is easy to sit back and call for war when it will be the common enlisted man who will die to provide this luxury. In the end, Howells made his point clear. War never comes without sacrifice or consequence.
"An American "Must"" Saturday Evening Post 16 Jan. 1943: 100. MasterFILE Premier. Web. 6 Mar. 2014.
Ordinary people are willing to go against their own decision of right and wrong to fulfill the request of an authoritative figure, even at the expense of their own moral judgment and sense of what is right and wrong. Using a variety of online resources including The Perils of Obedience by Stanley Milgram this paper attempts to prove this claim.