How is the relationship between Pip and Magwitch presented in Great Expectations by Charles Dickens?

When Magwitch returns, Pip is first ashamed of him, but then grows to care about him. 

Dickens presents the relationship between Magwitch and Pip as complicated, starting from when Pip was a small boy and Magwitch was a convict. As Pip becomes a gentleman, he grows to resent everything about where he came from. He is too good for his former life. When Magwitch returns, it reminds Pip of where he came from.

Magwitch and Pip’s relationship began with a chance encounter. Pip ran into Magwitch at a cemetery when Magwitch was on the run after having escaped from prison. Magwitch threatened Pip, but he was not particularly violent. If anything, Pip felt sorry for him. 

At the same time, he hugged his shuddering body in both his arms—clasping himself, as if to hold himself together—and limped towards the low church wall. As I saw him go, picking his way among the nettles, and among the brambles that bound the green mounds, he looked in my young eyes as if he were eluding the hands of the dead people, stretching up cautiously out of their graves, to get a twist upon his ankle and pull him in. (Ch. 1)

Magwitch remembered the kindness Pip showed, and when he made his fortune after being deported to Australia he sent money to Pip so he could become a gentleman. 

As brief as his stay with the convict is, it has a big impact on Pip. Whenever he encounters a convict, he wonders if the man knows Magwitch. When Magwitch shows up at his door in London one day, Pip is repulsed by him. 

He ate in a ravenous way that was very disagreeable, and all his actions were uncouth, noisy, and greedy. Some of his teeth had failed him since I saw him eat on the marshes, and as he turned his food in his mouth, and turned his head sideways to bring his strongest fangs to bear upon it, he looked terribly like a hungry old dog. (Ch. 40) 

Magwitch is entranced with Pip and sees him like a son. Pip is horrified not just because of Magwitch’s manners, but also because Magwitch is a criminal. As a gentleman, Pip can’t imagine associating with Magwitch. Magwitch is also in constant danger because he was not allowed to return to England. Pip becomes responsible for hiding Magwitch and then trying to get him out of the country. 

Magwitch’s past catches up with him. He is injured while trying to escape his old partner Compeyson's attempt to turn him in to authorities. While Magwitch is in jail dying, Pip softens toward him. He realizes Magwitch really does care about him, and he begins to care about Magwitch. Pip makes sure Magwitch dies comfortably wth the knowledge that his daughter is alive and well. Pip does not have the heart to tell him how Estella really turned out.

What three examples from the novel To Kill a Mockingbird depict Atticus' good parenting skills?

In Chapter 3, Scout comes home from a rough first day at school, and Atticus asks his daughter if she is ready to read. Atticus immediately notices that something is bothering Scout and asks her what's wrong. Scout laments about her new teacher, Miss Caroline, and Atticus teaches her an important lesson in perspective. When Scout refuses to go back to school because Burris Ewell only has to attend the first day, Atticus explains Burris' situation and teaches Scout another lesson about compromise. Atticus' willingness to find out what is bothering his daughter and his ability to explain important life lessons displays his good parenting skills.

In Chapter 9, Scout gets in trouble for punching and verbally assaulting her cousin Francis Hancock. Uncle Jack is quick to grab Scout and spank her for her offensive behavior. When Scout goes to her room, Uncle Jack follows her and attempts to talk to Scout. She tells him that he is being unfair and doesn't understand children much. Scout then says, "Well, in the first place you never stopped to gimme a chance to tell you my side of it---you just lit right into me. When Jem an' I fuss Atticus doesn't ever just listen to Jem's side of it, he hears mine too..." (Lee 113). Scout mentions Atticus' positive parenting attributes by commenting on his conflict resolution skills.

In Chapter 11, Jem loses his temper and destroys Mrs. Dubose's camellia bushes. Atticus is quick to discipline his son and tells Jem to go visit Mrs. Dubose and apologize for his actions. Atticus then makes Jem read to Mrs. Dubose for two hours every day, except for Sundays, for an entire month as punishment. After Mrs. Dubose passes away, Atticus explains to his children that Mrs. Dubose was a courageous individual, and he wanted them to witness what real courage was. Atticus' decision to make his son take responsibility for his negative behavior, and at the same time teach him lessons in tolerance and courage, portrays Atticus' excellent parenting abilities.

Who is to blame for the death of Romeo and Juliet in Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet?

On one hand, one might claim that Romeo's and Juliet's parents are to blame for their children's deaths.  After all, these children were raised in a culture of aggression where they have learned that hating their family's enemy is crucial and that violence is often the answer to problems.  Were it not for the families' grudge against one another, Romeo and Juliet might have been free to tell their parents about their feelings or they might not have been so quick to jump to violent action as an answer.

On the other hand, one could blame the Nurse and Friar for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet.  Romeo and Juliet are children, and they are encouraged by these two adults who they trust to go forward with the relationship.  The Nurse serves as a go-between for them, the Friar marries them in secret, and he even comes up with the plan for Juliet to fake her own death.  If the Nurse and the Friar had advised the couple to speak with their parents, it is possible that they would not have ended up dead.  It is even possible that their parents might have been supportive of the match.  The chorus says in the prologue that Romeo and Juliet come from "two households, both alike in dignity," and this statement makes it clear that the families are equal in status.  Further, when Tybalt gets angry that Romeo has attended the Capulets' party uninvited, Lord Capulet says that "Verona brags of [Romeo] / [As] a virtuous and well-governed youth" (1.5.76-77).  In other words, then, he has nothing against Romeo, personally, and has actually heard good things about him.  Further, at the end of the play, when the deaths of these youths have been discovered, Montague vows to erect a golden statue of Juliet to honor her faithfulness, and Capulet makes a similar promise to commission a statue of Romeo to lie by "his lady's" (5.3.314).  Thus, when the families learn how much their children loved each other, they try to honor that love.  Therefore, it seems entirely possible that if the Nurse and Friar had encouraged the lovers to be honest with their families, the play might have turned out very differently.

In Fahrenheit 451, how is burning books the government's solution to creating a utopian society?

In Fahrenheit 451, the government burns books as a means of creating a utopia and to understand the logic behind this practice, we need to look at Captain Beatty's speech from Part One of the novel. According to Beatty, technological innovation is one of the reasons for the introduction of book-burning. Television, radio and film, for example, put pressure on books to be shorter and more easily digested by the population:

"Classics cut to fit fifteen-minute radio shows, then cut again to fill a two-minute book column, winding up at last as a ten- or twelve-line dictionary resume."

In addition, as the population increased, there was a growing need to protect the sensitivities of minorities, as Beatty explains:

"Don't step on the toes of the dog-lovers, cat-lovers, doctors, merchants."

Most importantly, burning books is about getting rid of topics which may offend or upset people. By turning everything into "vanilla tapioca" and avoiding sensitive or thought-provoking topics, the government ensures that everybody is happy on the surface, at least.

What is the mother-child relationship?

Introduction

John Bowlby was one of the first psychologists to be interested in studying attachment patterns
in mother and child. He became involved in this when he was working with juvenile thieves and noticed that all such youths had experienced a disruptive relationship with their mothers when they were infants or young children. His studies led him to formulate his theory of attachment, which is considered the most comprehensive of its kind. Bowlby’s theory is based on the ethological principle that some behaviors are biologically programmed for optimal adaptability to the environment, which in turn increases the probability for survival. According to Bowlby, infants’ behaviors are biologically programmed to insure attachment to a primary caretaker, and attachment is an optimal strategy for survival.

Ethological Theory of Attachment

Mother-child relationships begin as an interactive dance in which each party responds to the other with a set of behaviors meant to result in a synchronized pattern of love. According to the principles of Bowlby’s ethological theory of attachment, all infants are born into the world biologically prepared to respond to attachment behaviors from a primary caretaker. At birth, infants have a set of limited responses, each of which elicits a specific response in an adult. For example, the cries of newborn babies will trigger milk flow in their mothers or increase the physiological arousal of any adult, which in turn increases the probability that the child’s needs will be met. Other examples include the fact that a newborn can recognize its mother’s voice, will grasp a finger placed in its hand, and will calm down when touched. In turn, an adult is likely to respond to these behaviors with loving and tender caresses and words. As the interactions grow and mature, the patterns of attachment become more canalized until, at about one year old, a child can be classified into one of several attachment patterns.

Attachment Types

Attachment is a pattern of parent-child interactions that determines the overall relationship between the child and its mother or father. Children can have a secure attachment to one or both parents, or they can have an insecure attachment. Bowlby determined that children who are securely attached view their mothers as “secure bases” to which they will return when feeling anxious or threatened.

The attachment classification was enhanced by Mary Ainsworth when she determined that one way to view differences in attachment security was to purposefully expose a baby to a environment that may be distressing. She devised the laboratory procedure of the strange situation, where infants and mothers were placed into a room full of toys. During a specified time period, the mother left and returned several times. The baby was left either with a stranger or alone. The child’s response to the separation and its reunion behaviors to the mother showed several differences in the child’s behaviors dependent on its pattern of maternal attachment. This procedure has become the standard operation used to measure attachment and has revealed a great deal about attachment in both the infant and older child.

Secure Attachment

In a secure attachment, infants tend to explore the environment more freely and are able to separate from their mothers without too much distress. On reunion, secure children are always happy to see their mothers and respond in a positive way. These children are also able to share their toys with strangers and be comforted by strangers if left alone. As children grow, those with a secure attachment tend to be happier and more stable, have more friends, do better in school, have higher motivation and achievement mastery, be more empathetic and more moral, and more likely to be a leader in school.

Secure attachment begins primarily with mothers responding in a nurturing and gentle manner. They are quick to comfort a crying child, show affection, are sympathetic, and smile at their children frequently. In the context of discipline, they are less likely to nag or punish, especially spank, and are more likely to reinforce positive behavior than focus on negative behavior. When a child does something wrong, this mother will explain to the child why the behavior was wrong and what the consequences are in a context that the child will understand. The mother encourages, helps, nurtures, and disciplines in a firm but gentle manner.

Insecure Attachment

There are at least two kinds of insecure attachment. Even though it is called insecure attachment, it is still an attachment. The bonding is not as strong or stable as a secure attachment and there are different consequences. Insecure attachment occurs because the infant has a need to protect himself or herself from some unpleasant parental situation and the only way to do that is to direct its attention away from the parent. All infants have a need for affection and love. If they seek out the mother, for example, and reach out or smile at her and the mother does not respond, the child’s emotional needs are not met and he or she feels distress and anxiety. If this happens enough times, the child learns to expect rejection and a conflict arises between the child’s needs and expectations. The child learns to avoid this unpleasant situation by directing attention away from the parent. Thus, the attachment that forms is not one where the child is certain that the parent will respond to his or her needs or make him or her feel secure. The child’s emotional development hardwires in the brain differently from the secure child. Thus, the insecure child’s emotional responses will be different also.

Generally, the two most widely recognized types of insecure attachment are avoidant attachment and resistant attachment. Children who form a resistant attachment pattern have found that the mother is inconsistent in her response to the child’s need. In some situations the mother is available and helpful, while at other times she is unresponsive or unavailable and may even use abandonment as a means of controlling the child. According to Ainsworth, this results in the child having a severe emotional response when separated from the mother, and separation anxiety
results in clinging and anxious behavior. However, when the mother returns, the child will resist any overtures of contact that the mother might make and does not easily calm down. The child may even show signs of anger or aggressive behavior toward the mother. About 10 to 15 percent of American infants show this pattern. Ainsworth refers to this type of attachment as ambivalent. Because the mother sometimes shows positive reactions to the child, the child does not totally disengage and still desires contact with the mother. Thus, these children show a mixture of desire for and rejection of the mother. They will be intimate one second and hostile the next. If the mother joins them after a separation, these children will focus on the toys or tasks at hand and will greet the mother briefly but distantly.

The second pattern of insecure attachment is avoidant. An avoidantly attached infant does not expect the mother to respond in a helpful manner, and the child learns that he or she may even be rebuffed when approaching the mother for protection or comfort. The mother of this child is usually rejecting of the child and shows little affection to the child. To protect himself or herself, the child distances from the mother and is not distressed during parental separation. When the mother returns, the child avoids the mother and does not greet her positively or affectionately. As the child ages, he or she attempts to live without love and support from others by becoming emotionally self-sufficient. About 20 percent of American babies show this type of attachment.

An avoidant attachment can also occur with the mother who shows too much attention to a child, who overreacts to everything, who is too exuberant in responses of even a positive expression, or who is too possessive or protective of the child. This overreactive response is too overwhelming for the child, who will react by directing attention away from the mother and thus become insecurely attached.

Another pattern of insecure attachment is disorganized/disoriented attachment. This attachment illustrates the most severe pattern of insecurity for the child. When young, these children display confused, contradictory behaviors toward the mother when reunited with her. For example, they may approach her but their facial expressions will relate no element of pleasure. In fact, these children more likely will display a flat, unemotional, or depressed expression. As these children age, their behavior toward their mother changes, responding to their mother at reunion with either a controlling or a dominating attitude, possibly trying to humiliate or reject the parent. They may also respond with an attitude of role-reversal, where the parent is treated as if he or she had become the child.

Attachment Stability

Although attachment patterns for the most part are stable over the life span, attachment patterns can be changed. It is never too late to forge a secure attachment. However, the emotional patterns of the child tend to be hardwired during early development and some of the child’s emotional responses will be automatic. The critical period is thought to be within the first three years of life. In other words, when a parent comforts a hurt child, there is a corresponding neural loop that goes from the emotional centers of the brain to the cerebral cortex of the brain and reduces anxiety. When this occurs enough times there is an automatic response in the brain that allows the child to comfort himself or herself. However, if the child is hurt and seeks comfort but gets instead a rebuke or even more physical pain, then the brain wires up differently so that physical hurts are associated with emotional hurts or vice versa. This does not necessarily indicate that the brain neural networks are abnormal, but they are different from children whose parents meet their emotional needs. There is still much research that needs to be done before it can be said for sure that the neural pattern is irrevocable, but some things can be changed.

Bibliography

Ainsworth, Mary, et al. Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1978. Print.

Bowlby, John. Attachment and Loss. 2nd ed. New York: Basic, 1999. Print.

Bowlby, John. A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. London: Routledge, 1988. Print.

Chen, Fu, et al. "The Role of Emotion in Parent-Child Relationships: Children's Emotionality, Maternal Meta-Emotion, and Children's Attachment Security." Journal of Child and Family Studies 21.3 (2012): 403–10. Print.

Holmes, Jeremy. John Bowlby and Attachment Theory. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2013. Print.

Karen, Robert. Becoming Attached. New York: Oxford UP, 1998. Print.

Main, Mary, and Donna Weston. "Avoidance of the Attachment Figure in Infancy: Descriptions and Interpretations." The Place of Attachment in Human Behavior. Ed. Colin Murray Parkes and J. S. Hinde. London: Tavistock, 1982. 31–59. Print.

Mooney, Carol Garhart. Theories of Attachment: An Introduction to Bowlby, Ainsworth, Gerber, Brazelton, Kennell, and Klaus. St. Paul: Redleaf, 2010. Print.

What are the characteristics of the mob in To Kill A Mockingbird?

The mob, composed of the Old Sarum Bunch, meets the specifics of what is termed mob mentality.

After the sheriff and business leaders of Maycomb visit Atticus, he decides to take a light and position himself that evening in front of the jailhouse door, behind which Tom Robinson is held. When "four dusty cars" stop in front of the jail, Atticus prepares to meet a mob. At first, no one gets out of the cars; then, the men step out in ones and twos. These men reek of stale whiskey and they speak "in near-whispers." Some wear hats pulled low over their eyes.

This group of men exhibit characteristics of the mob mentality in their unrecognizable individual appearances, their coming in a group for strength and anonymity, and their being "liquored up" in order to be less inhibited in their behavior. In addition, there is an emotional excitement generated that Atticus senses because his hands shake as he folds the newspaper that he has been looking at when the men arrive. 

Scout's addressing Mr. Walter Cunningham breaks the anonymity and group thought required for mob action. When she asks him, "How's your entailment gettin' along?" (Ch. 15) and reminds him that his son Walter is in her class, she causes Mr. Cunningham to become uncomfortable about antagonizing Mr. Finch, who has always treated him so fairly. At first, Mr. Cunningham's face is impassive, but soon after hearing Scout's words, he squats down to her and, holding her by the shoulders, he says, "I'll tell him you said hey, little lady." (Ch. 15)

By individualizing Mr. Cunningham, Scout has broken through the dehumanizing effect and anonymity of mob mentality; she has also diffused the emotion of the moment. Now, Mr. Cunningham is one thinking man looking at another and at his daughter. 

How are tobacco products advertised?

The “Joe Camel” Campaign

Of all the advertising campaigns launched by the tobacco industry, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company’s marketing for Camel brand cigarettes was by far the most notorious and controversial. In 1988, in an attempt to create “replacement smokers” for those long-term smokers who were sick and dying, R. J. Reynolds introduced the enormously popular and youth “friendly” animated character Joe Camel. An engaging, wisecracking, and easygoing character, “Old Joe” was an instant success among young people. Few people realize that R. J. Reynolds’s Joe Camel was a nod to the Durham bull, a similarly popular anthropomorphic character at the turn of the twentieth century. The Durham bull advertised roll-your-own cigarettes by rebelliously kicking up its heels and making humorous remarks.

Through R. J. Reynolds’s marketing campaign, Joe Camel was popularized on billboards and in magazines and newspapers, which became saturated with the Joe Camel image. The character was selling not only Camel cigarettes but also a huge amount of Joe Camel paraphernalia—everything from T-shirts, to baseball caps, to underwear.

In 1991, the American Medical Association sparked debate when it published a study revealing that 90 percent of six-year-old children who were surveyed could recognize and identify Joe Camel, roughly the same percentage who could recognize and identify Mickey Mouse. By contrast, only 67 percent of adults surveyed could identify Joe Camel and directly associate the character with cigarettes.

After filing a lawsuit against R. J. Reynolds for deceptive advertising practices and liability, a San Francisco law firm later revealed an astronomical spike of several hundred percent in revenue from youth market shares between 1988 and 1992 that was specifically attributable to the Joe Camel advertising campaign. In 1997, following public outcry and after the US Congress threatened stricter legislation, R. J. Reynolds settled the lawsuit, agreeing to terminate Joe Camel-related advertisements and agreeing to pay the State of California $10 million to fund antismoking education for youth.

Shortly thereafter, R. J. Reynolds changed its ad campaign by replacing Joe Camel the cartoon character with an image of a true camel, an image that was designed to appeal to adults and an image that still represents Camel cigarettes.

In the end, though, it was the phenomenal success of the Joe Camel advertising campaign that did more than anything else to incense and inflame the public. The ad campaign encouraged public, school, and legislative support for subsequent antismoking campaigns around the United States.

Legislating Deceptive Tobacco Advertising

In 1900, only one in 100 Americans smoked, but that percentage soon rose. During World War I, smoking became immensely popular in both the United States and in Europe, in part because the US military distributed free branded cigarettes to its troops. By the 1930s, the Federal Trade Commission began regulating the false advertising claims made by tobacco companies. Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it had been commonplace for tobacco products to be advertised by doctors and surgeons, who claimed that smoking had all-around health benefits.

Beginning in 1920, tobacco brands, especially Lucky Strike, began advertising campaigns that targeted women, appealing to American women’s newfound status as “liberated” voters after the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (1920). The ads promised women that smoking would make them more slender, trim, and attractive, a claim repeated fifty years later with the branding of Virginia Slims cigarettes.

The 1930s witnessed en masse the first detrimental fallout of smoking’s ever-growing popularity, as doctors began treating huge numbers of patients for lung cancer, a disease otherwise rarely seen. Increasing numbers of medical reports and studies worldwide began to draw direct correlations between the upsurge in smokers and the spike in certain kinds of cancer.

Smoking was further popularized during World War II, when free cigarettes were provided to the troops, as they were during World War I. Also, tobacco companies continued to deny medical reports, and their ads continued to portray smoking as healthy. Hollywood similarly intensified the glamorous appeal of smoking in its films. Consequently, by 1950, approximately 50 percent of American adults smoked cigarettes.

After more than a decade of continued research that further linked smoking and cancer, the US Office of the Surgeon General (in 1964) proclaimed smoking to be hazardous to one’s health and to be a direct cause of lung cancer. In 1965, Congress passed the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, which required cigarette manufacturers to place a warning label on each pack of cigarettes. The first label warned consumers that cigarette smoking “might” be hazardous to their health; in 1969, Congress passed additional legislation, the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, which required the warning label on cigarettes packs to be more definitive: “Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health.” The act also banned all advertising for cigarettes on television and radio.

Big Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, scientific studies continued to confirm the harm of tobacco products, yet the tobacco industry continued to deny this fact in its advertising. By the 1990s, with escalating numbers of lawsuits against the tobacco industry for fraudulent misrepresentation, wrongful death, criminal negligence, and criminal liability, an increasing number of cases were decided in favor of injured and, oftentimes, deceased smokers. Moreover, as enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars were being used to treat sick and dying smokers, state attorneys general began to sue tobacco companies to recoup lost revenue from state budgets. As juries awarded plaintiffs ever larger settlements, the tobacco industry began to search for a way to stop the increasing litigation.

Finally, in 1998, R. J. Reynolds, Brown and Williamson, and Philip Morris (three major entities of what came to be called Big Tobacco) were bound to the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), the largest financial settlement in US history. In addition to severely restricting tobacco advertising, the MSA mandated annual Big Tobacco payments of millions of dollars to state governments for ongoing governmental efforts to control tobacco use, especially among youths. The MSA also led to widespread antismoking advertising campaigns, such as the Truth campaign, which encouraged youth to stop or avoid smoking.

The MSA also made illegal all advertising and selling of tobacco products to any person younger than age eighteen and made it illegal to use any cartoon or animation to advertise tobacco products. This provision would ensure against the recurrence of any marketing campaign reminiscent of the Joe Camel campaign that had targeted children in earlier decades. The MSA additionally placed Big Tobacco advertising under the regulation and control of the US Food and Drug Administration, a provision later reinforced with congressional legislation.

E-cigarettes, which deliver nicotine by vaporizing a liquid solution containing it, are not covered by the laws restricting tobacco advertising, and the age restrictions also do not apply. The debate about advertising nicotine products to young people has therefore continued into the 2010s, with a 2015 study finding that adolescents age thirteen to seventeen were more likely to express an intention to try e-cigarettes after exposure to e-cigarette advertising. Another study, from the University of Pennsylvania, found that e-cigarette advertising was also likely to make smokers and former smokers crave tobacco.

Bibliography

Califano, Joseph, Jr. High Society: How Substance Abuse Ravages America and What to Do About It. New York: Public Affairs, 2007. Print.

Crawford, Elizabeth Crisp. Tobacco Goes to College: Cigarette Advertising in Student Media, 1920–1980. Jefferson: McFarland, 2014. Print.

"E-Cigarette Advertising Makes One Crave... Tobacco? Surprising Findings by Penn Researchers." Annenberg School for Communication. U of Pennsylvania. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

Farrelly, Matthew C., et al. "A Randomized Trial of the Effect of E-cigarette TV Advertisements on Intentions to Use E-cigarettes." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 49.5 (2015): 686–93. Print.

Hudson, David, Jr. Smoking Bans. Philadelphia: Chelsea House, 2004. Print.

Hyde, Margaret. Know About Smoking. New York: Walker, 1995. Print.

White, Larry. Merchants of Death: The American Tobacco Industry. New York: Random House, 1991. Print.

Williams, Rodger. At Issue: Teen Smoking. Farmington Hills: Greenhaven, 2009. Print.