Analysis Of ' A Great Deal Of Inequality Within The Scene ' Essay

The Sociological Explanations for Class Inequality There is much debate in sociology about whether class is still important. Many argue that class is no longer important as an individual's identity and life chances are based more status and cultural factors such as lifestyle, values, intelligence, education and the like, the post-modernists state that class has ceased to be the prime determinant of identity and suggest that societies are now organised around consumption rather than production, consequently people now identify themselves in terms of what they consume rather than in terms of social-class position. Class identity has therefore fragmented into numerous separate and individualised

Inequality exists around us. One of the inequalities is the income received by a person or member of a family. This income includes wages, salaries, pensions, and interest derived from assets. Income inequality refers to the various income within a given population. This inequality is especially high in the United States.

In Rousseau’s book “A Discourse On Inequality”, he looks into the question of where the general inequality amongst men came from. Inequality exists economically, structurally, amongst different generations, genders, races, and in almost all other areas of society. However, Rousseau considers that there are really two categories of inequality. The first is called Natural/Physical, it occurs as an affect of nature. It includes inequalities of age,, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind and soul. The second may be called Moral/Political inequality, this basically occurs through the consent of men. This consists of the privileges one group may have over another, such as the rich over the

Now that all the papers are handed out the men begin to unfold the slips of paper to reveal blank pieces of paper. However one man is left with a paper with a black dot on it. The man unlucky enough to receive this slip of paper is Bill Hutchinson. Promptly Tessie Hutchinson, Bill’s wife, begins to panic saying he didn’t have enough time to pick his paper. Being a reasonable official Mr. Summers allows Hutchinson and each of his family members to reselect a paper. Bill, his two sons, one daughter, and wife Tessie each take a paper and Tessie Hutchinson is left with the paper with the black dot. The townspeople begin to clear a space around Tessie Hutchinson. One of the younger boys from earlier in the story hands her son a stone. While she screams “It isn’t fair, it isn’t right,” the townspeople begin stoning her, the lottery “winner”.

In the beginning of the year I entered this class with a very sheltered and ignorant view of current and past events. Through time and sociological evolution I have begun to see things in a different light. The development of my ability, to look at something or some kind of situation, lets me use the sociological terms in such a manner to relate them to micro and macro problems in society. This started with the assigned readings of the class; the aim was to decipher the messages the authors were presenting. The goal was then to dig deeper and use my experiences to help myself understand the concepts throughout the course. "The mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be ignited." Plutarch (46-120 CE--common era) I was no longer

Jackson also gives examples of hypocrisy, which runs rampant in today’s society. Tessie is perfectly willing to stone one of her neighbors, but when she is the one who is going to be stoned, she says, "It isn’t fair, it isn’t right" (Jackson 868). Likewise, Mr. and Mrs. Adams talk of stopping the lottery, yet when it comes time to stone Tessie, Mr. Adams is leading the pack. Also the men seem to be concerned that women have a man to draw for them: "Glad to see your mother’s got a man to do it" and "Don’t you have a grown boy to do it" (Jackson 865). But in the end the men no longer care about the well being of the women; they must take the same chance at dying. The fact that Tessie is a woman doesn’t save her from dying. "The Lottery" also offers

She uses Mr. Summers as a scapegoat and shouts “`You didn’t give him enough time to take any paper he wanted. I saw you. It wasn’t fair ‘” (Jackson 208). Throughout the drawing of the names, Tessie seemed to be fine with the fact that someone was going to die until it the realization set in that it may be her. Before a drawing is held to decide who wins, Tessie tries to make Mr. Summers include her daughter, “`There’s Don and Eva, make them take their chance!’” (Jackson 209). This shows how ruthless and careless Tessie is. She knows that her daughter was already entered in the drawing under her husband’s name. Having her daughter enter would only give her more of a chance to live. After Tessie is chosen as the winner she demands that the drawing was done unfairly and that her husband was rushed. What’s ironic about that is she is the one who rushed Bill to draw. Jackson uses the hypocrisy of Tessie’s actions to show this.

As Tessie’s protests continue and the Hutchinson family prepares to draw again the sense of apprehension is one again mounting, this time fearing for whoever wins yet still not knowing what their “prize” will be. “The crowd was quiet. A girl whispered, ‘I hope it’s not Nancy’”, the silence and fear of the crowds manifests in the reader as the three children and their parents all draw slips of paper. Tessie “wins” the lottery and when the narrator explains “although the villagers had forgotten the ritual, and lost they original black box, they still remembered to use stones” (6) its suddenly shockingly clear to the readers what the winner is to receive. The drastic switch from a light and cheerful tone with talk of the beautiful day and children playing to the closing like of “and they were upon her” (7) is in part why this story is so effective. The unforeseen sinister end of the story makes the revelation of the tradition much more shocking and unsettling than had the reader known from the beginning what the outcome would be. Jackson very effectively builds a sense of apprehension and foreboding as she slowly cues the reader into the reality of the situation.

In the end of the story Tessie Hutchinson, does in fact die from the lottery. This is proving the idea that those who live by conformity may die from it. The idea that those who live by conformity may die by it is shown when no one tries to end the lottery, also when Tessie does not protest until she is affected by the lottery, and finally when the townspeople do not understand the true

Although both stories end with the death of a character, the conflicts are mostly different and do not take similar paths. In “The Lottery” it is hard to truly know the conflict throughout the story. The conflict of the individual vs. society is only apparent at the end. The conflict arises when Bill (Tessie's husband) picks out a piece of paper from the lottery box, and his piece of paper has a black dot in the middle of his slip of paper. Tessie sees his paper and starts yelling at people, particularly Mr. Summers, the man who conducts the lottery. She was yelling at him because she had thought that he didn’t give her husband enough time to pick out a slip of paper. So, in the end the town stones Tessie to death, which makes the conflict clear that it is man (woman) vs. society.

Tessie Hutchinson being one to protest the lottery when her husband wasn’t given enough time to choose, yet he did nothing for her when she was chosen. For the sake of tradition, these people are giving up the lives of their friends and family, their loved ones. Multiple times in the story, it shows that people are eager to finish the lottery and go back about their business. Some examples include a mother wishing her son could draw in the lottery for her if he were of age. No one in this town wants to die themselves, and yet are still laying down the lives of others to continue this twisted tradition.

Tessie’s late arrival at the lottery ritual instantly sets her apart from the crowd of town people, and the Mr. Summers makes a statement to her “Thought we were going to have to get on without you” (Pg4p9). The town people have prescience about Tessie’s fate. When Mr. Summers asks whether the Watson boy will draw for him and his mother, no reason is given why Mr. Watson wouldn’t draw as all the other husbands and fathers do, which suggests that Mr. Watson may have been last year’s victim.

The conflict of the lottery shows the selfish attitude of character, Tessie Hutchinson. Overall, the Tessie Hutchinson did not disagree with the rules or process of the lottery until her family name

At this point in time, not only does Tess get frowned upon because she is late on such an important day, but she is now being judged by her neighbors as someone who should not be a part of their community. Due to the fact, that she comes off as way too eager at the lottery for someone her age, essentially, but it also seems as though she is not very attentive when it comes to the rules of the lottery and its’ tradition that it is trying to enforce. Another example of how Tess stands out is when she tells her husband, Bill Hutchinson, who gets called to go and draw a name to go and, “get up there, Bill” (434). This short statement from Tess ends up causing the people around her to laugh, which essentially makes her stand out from the rest once again. Tess’s eagerness to see the lottery in the beginning, mirrors how desperate she becomes when she trys to get out of the event itself when she ends up getting picked.

Imagine that you and your next door neighbor were going to run a foot race. Then, your neighbor's friend holds you stationery until your neighbor has completed a great portion of the race. Finally, your neighbor's friend releases you so that you may complete in the race. Sprinting vigorously and freely, it would be nearly impossible to win. Could you win or at minimum, could you be any type of competition? This analogy is equivalent to the governmental position taken in the 1960's particularly 1968—the year that the Civil Right's Act was enacted. But, why mention the Civil Right's Act, everyone is equal now right? Wrong! The act was a success on paper, but failed to do the most important thing, and that is to give people in poverty