Examples Of Aggression In Hedda Gabler

5 In the course of my experiments I convinced myself that among the animals man is the only one that harbors insults and injuries, broods over them, waits till a chance offers, then takes revenge. The passion of revenge is unknown to the higher animals.

Our knowledge of ecology also teaches us that by killing animals we may be tampering with the delicate ecosystem and inviting our own destruction. Human beings are probably the most intelligent creatures on earth. That is why they have a great responsibility of keeping intact the life of the earth. Indiscriminate killing for sport is an uncivilized and anti-intellectual activity, because we should share this world with the other animals and live in harmony with them. Harmonious existence is the key to civilization and survival.

Why do people kill innocent animals for sport? Many see it as cold-blooded murder. Hunting’s popularity still persists though. In The Most Dangerous Game, the author, Richard Connell shows his negative view on hunting. Three reasons can prove this theory.

People can largely benefit from animals through interaction. In the article “ Saying Farewell to a Faithful Pal, by John Grogan. He said one day when a stranger tried to hold one of the children, our holly giant showed ferocity we never imagined was inside of him.” IN this quote a person that showed a since of danger when this happened the animal then attacked. That animal attacked because they have a keen

It is obvious to see the flaws in Howard’s logic. Yes, animals must hunt and kill in the wild, but that is what they are born to do. It is part of their DNA and has centuries to perfect. It is nice for humans to feed the animals in captivity, but they would not need to be fed if they had never been captured. The other part of the quote refers to life spans of a wild animal verses captured animals.

Hedda becomes more and more obsessed with controlling people as the play unfolds, gaining momentum on her manipulative actions until her intense fear of society and judgement (scandal) paralyzes her. Throughout the play, the author Ibsen, alludes to Heddas instability through her subtexts and the contradiction between her thoughts and actions. Ibsen's use of literary foils highlights Heddas weaknesses, revealing her true nature of cowardice. Building up to her ultimate demise, brought about between the collision of [her lack of] control and fear.

In the article by Jones, the research presented demonstrates that humans are not genetically programmed to be destructive--instead, our goals, culture, and society create motivations that cause violence to manifest. Two evolutionary

“Human nature is complex. Even if we do have inclinations toward violence, we also have inclination to empathy, to cooperation, to self-control” (Pinker). This quote by Steven Pinker couldn’t be more true. The nature of man is a constant fight between good and evil. However, people can be compelled to act against their instincts with the request from another.

Hedda tears down everyone throughout the play, with Lövborg and Brack as the only exception. After being born to a high standing family, her expectations of power are high, but due to her biologic form as a woman she is trapped and unable to take control, “because Hedda has been imprisoned since girlhood by the bars of Victorian propriety, her emotional life has grown turbulent and explosive” (Embler). However, after succumbing to marriage with Tesman, whom she only marries for money and respect, she loses her place in society as she, as a mere woman, cannot retain it. This slowly unwinds Hedda and eventually leads her on to her fatal path. By

Hedda arouses sympathy from the readers through her own personal conflicts. She is a woman trapped by herself in a loveless marriage to an “ingenuous creature” (52 Ibsen) named George Tesman. Tesman is a simple soul with very little to offer. Not only is he an entire social class below Hedda, but he is oblivious, insecure due to his own banalities, and overly reliant on his Aunts’, despite being thirty-three-years-old. Hedda married George due to a “bond of sympathy. . .” (31 Ibsen) formed between them and she “took pity. . .” (31 Ibsen) on George. This brings a sense of sincerity to Hedda that was not turned to such a high magnitude preceding this discussion between Judge Brack and herself. Hedda is a lonely, yet independent, soul that wants sexual freedom without

This passage from the denouement Henrik Ibsen’s play, Hedda Gabler, before Hedda’s suicide, is an illustration of the vulnerability and defeat of the impetuous and manipulative titular character. Ibsen develops Hedda’s character by uncovering details about the conflicts between Hedda and the other characters, Judge Brack, Mrs Elvsted, and George Tesman which highlight Hedda’s transformation from an individualistic to despairing individual, conveying the theme of freedom and repression in society.

The reflection of women in literature during the late eighteen-hundreds often features a submissive and less complex character than the usual male counterpart, however Henrik Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler features a women who confines herself to the conformities that women were to endure during that time period but separates herself from other female characters by using her intelligence and overall deviousness to manipulate the men in her life and take a dominant presence throughout the play. Hedda challenges the normal female identity of the time period by leaving the stereotype of the “quiet, subservient housewife” through her snide and condescending remarks as well as her overall spoiled aristocratic demeanor.

Hedda Gabler is a text in which jealousy and envy drive a woman to manipulate and attempt to control everyone in her life. The protagonist, Hedda, shows her jealousy in her interactions with the other characters in the play, particularly with Eilert Loveborg and Thea Elvsted. Because Hedda is unable to get what she wants out of life because of her gender and during the time of the play, her age, she resorts to bringing everyone else down around her. Hedda lets her jealousy get the best of her and because of this she hurts many of the people around her as well as ultimately hurting herself.

Contrary to Narveson, I do not believe that animals should be denied of moral consideration because of their limited ability to harm humans. First of all, this statement is false animals clearly have the ability to attack if so desired not by the human, but by the decision of the animal. In our sculpted urban environments animals are exiled and in relatively minimal human contact. Such predacious animals, that have historically attacked humans, have been kept out of our society by enormous architectural fences. These animals that attack usually need vast open spaces to hunt game, these environments hardly exist any more, and these animals are rarely in contact with humans. These urban areas do not attract animals with the capacity to attack humans but that is not to say that these animals do not have the ability to harm us, we have just manipulated our environment so that they are on the outside. One thousand years ago, humans would have been more likely to have been attacked by an animal. Our modern buildings and infrastructure isolate us from these creatures and has also reduced their population making it less dangerous for a human to worry about being struck by a beast on their way to work.

Hedda is the product of aristocratic birth.  She is, as I mentioned earlier, the daughter of General Gabler, whose portrait hangs over this play not unlike the portrait of the absent father in Williams' The Glass Menagerie.  And in case we have missed the significance of the portrait in the stage directions or have overlooked it as an audience member, Miss Tesman rivets our attention to it and the reality of Hedda's aristocratic life:  "Well, you cant's wonder at that--General Gabler's daughter!  Think of the sort of life she was accustomed to in her father's time.  Don't you remember how we used to see her riding down the road along with the General? In that long black habit--with feathers in her hat?"  (Ibsen  2).  Her aristocratic birth and her past is contrasted by her choice of a husband who has neither noble blood nor bourgeois money.  We are told that this motherless child of an aristocratic general often gave in to fits of cruelty as a child:  "At the finishing school the presence of a girl with a head of abundant, wavy flaxen hair irritated her and provoked her to outbursts of cruelty which had their source in equal measure, perhaps, in envy and in a deep-seated temperamental antipathy; for dearth of abundance, physically and temperamentally, is a characteristic of Hedda's nature" (Weigland  246-247).