The Socioreligious Significance of Rice A comparis Essay Example For Students

The Socioreligious Significance of Rice A comparis Essay on between two Southeast Asian societies Without rice, there is nothing doing. The fact that rice plays an important role in the lives of the peoples of Southeast Asia is undeniable. It is not just a form of sustenance that nourishes the body; it is also an aspect of everyday life that feeds not only the soul but the unbounded realms of the imaginative human mind. Such proverbs as above are an example of how rice is revered and incorporated in day-to-day living of the peoples in this region. Even outside the region, as in Mizumono Kuni the Land of Luxurious Rice Crops that is Japan, the placement of rice is that of a very high level: next to the Emperor, rice is the most sacred of all things on earth. We will write a custom essay on The Socioreligious Significance of Rice A comparis specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now Money can be squandered and the wastrel forgiven, but there is no forgiveness for wasting rice (Piper 1993:14). In Southeast Asia, rice is seen as the basis of almost all the cultures and civilizations ever created. It is also said to be responsible for the high populations of this region for if it wasnt for rice that had replaced the millets and other staple food crops that preceded it, far fewer people could have been supported by agriculture (Piper 1993:1). The truth remains that the bulk of the cultures of Southeast Asia constitutes agriculturalists with rice as the main crop, with a few exceptions of course, in more industry-oriented nations for example. Two main elements can be derived: firstly, since rice has been the major crop cultivated in Southeast Asia for perhaps more than 7,000 years, surely cultures and civilization are interwoven with each other (Piper 1993:1). One can safely assume that that long a time must have been ample enough for gradual evolutions and intermixing of cultures and traditions, rituals and beliefs and so on that is closely linked to rice, so we can see simil arities between cultures of different countries within this region that may have even perpetuated from the same roots. And the same goes to the careful selections of good varieties of rice over time. Secondly, rice is such an adaptive crop that it is not impossible to successfully grow it in different environments where crops could not have been grown successfully- from swampy valleys and deltas to hot, dry land above the floods and even in the mountain forests (Piper 1993:1). Consequently, rice is often seen as a blessed gift from the divine and that it is generally treated with due respect and reverence. What are the evidences for this? A good way of looking at the extent of the importance of rice in the lives of the Southeast-Asians is by observing the socio-cultural ways and practices of the peoples through their traditions and whatnot that have been passed down from one generation to another. Obviously, most of these societies have put a lot of emphasis on rice and religion seeing that rice has indeed impacted upon their lives like a blessing from the heavens. As such, we shall later look at the examples of two Southeast Asian societies in which I hope will evidently display the socio-religious significance of rice in the lives of its members, and the importance within their society as a whole. Before I proceed, I think it imperative to somehow define religion and what the term socio-religious (significance and) practices mean. Why should it be a good indicator of how much rice is revered and even worshipped in this region? As a food, why should one even relate rice to religion? The forms of religion vary enormously, but they are all alike to the extent that they are founded on a belief in the supernatural (Ferraro 1997:284). Although the definition and interpretation of religion is highly open to discussion and that not all anthropologists always agree on one, Ferraro offers a definition which I think is suitable to this paper. He defines it as a set of beliefs and patterned behaviours concerned with supernatural beings and forces. He continues, Because human societies are faced with a series of important life problems that cannot all be resolved through the application of science and technology, they attempt to overcome .

magic Essays

The Tempest is based around a key a idea of reuniting family through what may appear to the characters as bizarre coincidence, but in fact is the outcome of witchcraft/magic Essays The Tempest is based around a key a idea of reuniting family through what may appear to the characters as bizarre coincidence, but in fact is the outcome of witchcraft/magic Essay The Tempest is based around a key a idea of reuniting family through what may appear to the characters as bizarre coincidence, but in fact is the outcome of witchcraft/magic Essay Essay Topic: The Tempest Twelve Years a Slave Shakespeares, The Tempest is based around a key a idea of reuniting family through what may appear to the characters as bizarre coincidence, but in fact is the outcome of witchcraft/magic. It is widely thought the main character (Prospero) is a transformation of the famous writer himself, William Shakespeare, as Prospero pursues his studies over his people and also is very fond of his daughter. We are first introduced to Prospero in Act I Scene II where we see his daughter Miranda questioning him about the shipwreck, here Shakespeare uses conversation as a tool to build up our first impressions of Prospero and to explain his past. My first impression is that he is quite self-centred as he tries to portray himself as a great character and role model to Miranda as is all his actions are for her benefit, No harm. I have done nothing but in care of thee, This could also be interpreted as the role of a loving father but then Prospero goes on to tell her about her past which he has kept from her for twelve years, is this so loving? Prospero may well have been attempting to protect his daughter, or it may appear to the audience that he was purposely withholding information from her just to ensure that his plan went ahead accordingly. He also talks of how he was unfairly overthrown from his prestigious position as Duke of Milan, but yet Antonio is not here to defend himself so as an audience we may stop to question whether this view is entirely true as he tries to dismiss the fact that he was more concerned with his studies. He desperately tries to maintain a high level of respect from Miranda, Thou attendst not? O, good sir, I do. This gives me the impression that he is esteemed by power, thrilled by the fact that he has such authority, unintentionally portraying himself as domineering. Throughout the play we are able to see the duality in Prosperos character. Shakespeare shows us two distinct sides to Prospero, one being the tyrant and the other being the protector. If we look at him as the tyrant we can firstly look at the main reason of the play; the shipwreck. Even though Prospero didnt harm anyone onboard the ship, he still caused the shipwreck, at first it appears that this is an abuse of his power, but the thing that strikes me most is that it was actually Ariel who caused the storm but Prospero doesnt reveal this to Miranda and even puts her to sleep before summoning Ariel. (This again could be seen as the role of a protecting father.) A key implement in Prosperos strive for power is his cloak, when wearing it he is in complete control and then once removed he returns to being the loving father. Shakespeare takes care to ensure that the elements of his loving father side are still apparent, e.g. when he tells Miranda of how her smile helped to sustain him th rough the journey from Milan to the island, Thou wast that did preserve me. Thou didst smile, Infused with a fortitude from heaven, The biggest debate, in my opinion, is whether Prospero caused Miranda and Ferdinand to fall in love or whether it was natural. We can look at it from both the tyrant and the protector side. It appears that Prospero has set everything up down to the very last detail to guarantee that his plan will work and hence Miranda and Ferdinand will marrybut does that mean that he made them fall in love? Yes and no, you could argue yes because if it werent for his plotting they would never have met in the first place, but no in the sense that he pretended to be against the idea so as to test that Ferdinands love was real. Throughout the play there is a continuing sense that Prospero is like a god. He is in control of his domain, has caused everything that has happened to take place, and has power over every situation. He is omnipresent in the sense that he sends Ariel to keep watch over everything thats going on and to goad and generally cause havoc, Ariel then reports back to Prospero so that he is kept up to date and can begin to plot his next plan of action. Again, here Shakespeare seems to provoke a domineering image of Prospero and this also highlights his treatment of Ariel. Any time Ariel asks Prospero about when he will finally be released, Prospero reminds him of the treacherous life he rescued him from. As readers we can see that this is quite hypocritical as Prospero rescued Ariel from one life of slavery and plunged him straight into another, Dost thou forget From what torment I did free thee? Prosperos treatment of Ariel varies as one minute hes referring to him as malignant thing and then the next, My quaint Ariel, so again Prospero could be perceived as being contradictory. In Act II Scene I the idea of Prospero as a god is further progressed, when he tests Sebastian and Antonio through Ariel by providing them with the chance to kill Alonso and Gonzalo, here we see Shakespeare using similar temptation as in Macbeth. When Prospero commands Ariel to awaken the victims Shakespeare lightens the mood by putting in a witty song, written in rhyme. Although it may appear that Sebastian and Antonio are in control, we as the audience know that Prospero is the real force behind it all, testing them to a certain extent and then stopping. If we look now to Prosperos treatment of Caliban, we see that even though he is in the same position as Ariel, Caliban reacts very differently to his situation. Caliban believes that every bad thing that happens to him is down to Prospero. As an audience we can justify that Prospero is in fact innocent with regards to the pinching, scaring, annoying, misleading, chattering, biting and hissing, and we may begin to see how Shakespeare uses Caliban to show us that Prospero isnt to blame all the time. We also begin to understand why Prospero refers to him in such a rude manner, e.g. freckled whelp, lying slave, and filth. In Act III Scene II we are again shown how differently the two creatures react to their treatment when Caliban tells Trinculo and Stephano that Prospero stole the island from his possession, As I told thee before, I am subject to a tyrant, a sorcerer, that by his cunning hath cheated me of the island. Ariel, although again invisible, responds in opposition with Thou liest. This, from the view of the audience, again reinforces our perception that Prospero may be loving after all as Ariel has a tendency to exaggerate as well as Caliban but yet he supports Prospero on this account. Another godlike trait of Prospero is his tendency to test people, we continually see him do this throughout the play and one of the most important times we see this, when Shakespeare has him positioned above the scene in full view of the audience is in Act III Scene III when he commands the spirits to enter with a banquet and then when they approach to feast Ariel stops them with a speech, rather like a sermon, educating rather than punishing, summing up the play with, You fools! I and my fellows Are ministers of Fate Here Shakespeare imposes the idea of heaven and hell by having Ariel dressed as a Harpy (creature of hell) and the good and bad divide with the god watching over. But in some cases it may be perceived that Prospero is actually and evil god as he is teasing them with food. Even though Alonso thinks he has been punished for abandoning Prospero in his hour of need, we as the audience know that he hasnt truly been punished but in fact that his son is alive and so here we may realise that Prospero isnt really out for revenge. This scene shows us Prospero in control, as a magician, and also as a godlike figure. The language Shakespeare chooses to use in Ariels speech is very strong, the use of you may even make members of the audience feel as though he is talking to them. This play has a continuing theme of denouement, i.e. the untying of knots, and this is the structure of all of Shakespeares plays. In Act IV Scene I we see both the tyrant and the loving father side as Prospero addresses Ferdinand on the matter of sex before marriage, even though he is still being very formal and in some ways quite aggressive it is due to his love for Miranda, by handing her over to marriage with Ferdinand Prospero describes the process as giving away, A third of mine own life And therefore Shakespeare encourages members of the audience to empathise with Prospero. At the same time people may see this as his possessive nature, treating Miranda like his property, and quite chauvinistic but we must remember that this is what fathers did in that period. Throughout Act IV the image of Prospero as a playwright/director is built up increasingly, he makes it clear that the fun and games are over now, it was just like a game of chess to him with the King being cornered. In line 184, Prospero again is quite contradictory when he calls Ariel, my bird as the my could either be taken as possessive again or affectionate but then birds are closely associated with freedom but also captivity. When Prospero enters in magic robes in Act V Scene I, he is carrying a staff which of course is commonly used in the bible, both to symbolise power but also to smite things. In line 52 he requests heavenly music, Gonzalo is also described as religious similar to Banquo and King Duncan, i.e. Shakespeares good characters are all religious. At the end when we see Prospero set Ariel free, we see Prospero being presented as loving again, as he kept his promise and we can see that he was being truthful all along about trying to resolve everything. The common theme of Prospero as a god is more definite as he decides what is to be done and has the final words as they leave his domain, his epilogue is quite powerful in the sense that he has had victory over the situation, everything is as he had planned and now he can resume normal life. How does Shakespeare present Prospero in The Tempest?