(Cover Sheet) English Higher Level A1 -World Literature
Name: Pon Chin Ching
Candidate number: 10242
Centre: 003257 Island School
Teacher: Mr. Langford-Smith/
Ms. Sommerville
Essay Titles:
2a.
In what ways do the actions of Meursault and
Firdaus demonstrate their resistance against the
oppression of social hegemony in “The Outsider” by
Albert Camus and “Women at Point Zero” by Nawal
El Saadawi?
2c.
A commentary on Antigone by Sophocles
World Literature 1
In what ways do the actions of Meursault and Firdaus demonstrate their
resistance against the oppression of social hegemony in “The Outsider” by
Albert Camus and “Women at Point Zero” by Nawal El Saadawi?
World Literature 1
Jensen Pon
27th June, 2010
Word Count: 1499
World Literature 1
“Women at Point Zero” by Nawal El Saadawi and “Outsider” by Albert Camus both present
protagonists forced to confront oppressive demands of their societies. However, the methods
each protagonist employs to liberate themselves from these oppressive forces vary according
to the social context each must confront. While Firdaus is confronted with patriarchal
intimidation, which she responds with prostitution, murder, and eventual self-sacrifice to the
penal system, Mersault is confronted with a code of social behavior completely at odds with his
own beliefs about life, which he responds by refusing to deny his principles to his oppressors. In
both novels, the protagonists liberate themselves from these varied oppressions. However, the
cost of resistance for both protagonists was death.
Firdaus’ first act of resistance is her abandonment of an arranged marriage with a man who she
lacks affection towards and physically abuses her. Realizing she is imprisoned by the patriarchal
institution of marriage and intimidation, her decision to escape from the man’s house becomes
her first act of resistance against the patriarchal system. This action is motivated by her
realization to the plight women in Egyptian society where the source of her physical oppression
comes from men’s’ lust of her physical body. Firdaus’ realization to these circumstances is seen
in her own forced marriage and the oppression of marriage in general, “…marriage was the
system built on the most cruel suffering for women.”1. Here Firdaus describes how Egyptian
wives are seen as mere possessions to satisfy men’s lust as seen in, “At night…legs and arms
around me...starving...”2. Firdaus also emphasizes how women are economically dependent on
men by describing her mealtimes, “…looking at my plate while I ate…told me off for my
wastefulness...Yet I was not given to wasting anything.”3 Therefore, through these descriptions
we can see how the system of marriage had only made it easy for men to exploit women. This
patriarchal oppression provides a strong rationale to justify Firdaus’ escape.
A second act of resistance is her willingness to pursue a career of prostitution for economic self-
sufficiency. Firdaus had been aware her marriage was based on the assumption by her uncle
1Saʻdāwī, Nawāl, Woman at Point Zero Pg 94
2Saʻdāwī, Nawāl, Woman at Point Zero Pg 45
3Saʻdāwī, Nawāl, Woman at Point Zero Pg 45
World Literature 1
and his wife Firdaus was incapable of supporting herself financially and therefore needed her
uncle’s wife’s relative -Sheikh Mahmoud, to provide for her, given she becomes his wife.
However, this discreetly implied obligatory sex in exchange for his material support.
Disillusioned with this marriage, Firdaus sees prostitution as liberating herself, “I preferred to
be a free prostitute, rather than an enslaved wife. ”4 The inherent advantage prostitutes have
over wives is economic independence, where “the lowest paid body is of the wife...”5. She uses
the economic advantage of prostitution to a great extent, juxtaposing with her economic
circumstances as a wife, “...from time to time I said no. As a result my price kept going up.”6
Therefore, her prostitution becomes a means of liberation from the institution of marriage
where she is previously financially dependent on her husband who demands obligatory sex.
A third act of resistance is her use of counter violence against the abusive pimp. Despite her
liberation from the institution of marriage, Firdaus still remained victim to physical violence
men impose on women in order to maintain control. In response, Firdaus killed her pimp. This
act of violence is not only an act of resistance but also an act of psychological liberation in
which she finally overcomes her fear of men. This is seen in, “I realized I had been afraid...until
the fleeting moment I read fear in his eyes.”7 She also suggests the nature of men’s control over
women is tenuous and women are equally as violent as a man can be, as seen in, “I was
astonished…how easily…I thrust the knife into his flesh…almost without effort.”8. She further
prove this by threatening the Arab prince as seen in, “...my hand…landed…violently on his
face.”9 Her new-found hostility towards men suggest by murdering her pimp, she has
effectively become immune to intimidation from men as she is equally capable of violence.
Therefore, it is apparent at this point of the story Firdaus has liberated herself economically,
physically and psychologically from the patriarchal oppressions of her society.
4Saʻdāwī, Nawāl, Woman at Point Zero Pg 99
5Saʻdāwī, Nawāl, Woman at Point Zero Pg 99
6Saʻdāwī, Nawāl, Woman at Point Zero Pg 97
7Saʻdāwī, Nawāl, Woman at Point Zero Pg 107
8Saʻdāwī, Nawāl, Woman at Point Zero Pg 104
9Saʻdāwī, Nawāl, Woman at Point Zero Pg 109
World Literature 1
Firdaus’s ultimate form of resistance against the social hegemony is self-sacrifice. Her defiance
to conform to patriarchal expectations ultimately leads to her execution. Although her death
does not liberate her physically, her execution vindicates her philosophy and serves as a
rationale to justify her actions in life. Firdaus was given a chance to be released but talked back
to the authorities, expressing her desire to die than live, “...I have triumphed over both life and
death because I no longer desire to live, nor do I any longer fear to die.”10 She is aware her
refusal to renounce her knowledge of the “truth” will be punished with death. However, by
possessing the “truth”, she can “protect” herself and stop “fearing death, life, or hunger, or
nakedness, or destruction”11. She reinforces her execution will vindicate her philosophy by
stating, “I prefer to die for a crime I have committed rather than to die for one of the crimes
which you have committed.”12
While Firdaus faced oppression from a patriarchal society, Mersault confronts a more
philosophical oppression. His society cannot tolerate his disinterest to their moral conventions.
Mersault’s first act of resistance is his refusal to lie about his feeling towards his mother and the
murder of the Arab. Meursault’s initial thoughts establish his lack of concern with behaving
accordingly to the social norms of his society, “Mother died today. Or maybe yesterday, I don’t
know.”13 His unwillingness to sacrifice his principal to his lawyer indicates his indifference to the
social norms of his society, as seen in, “…he asked me if he can say I controlled my natural
feelings…I said ‘No, because it’s not true.’...He left, looking angry. ”14 Furthermore, his refusal
to provide a satisfying rationale or show remorse for his murder further highlights his nihilistic
and defiant attitude to the social norms of as seen in, “...I said it was by chance...the prosecutor
remarked in a malicious tone ‘ will be all for the present’... ”15
10
Saʻdāwī, Nawāl, Woman at Point Zero Pg 110 11
Saʻdāwī, Nawāl, Woman at Point Zero Pg 112 12
Saʻdāwī, Nawāl, Woman at Point Zero Pg 111 13
Albert Camus, The Outsider Pg 9 14
Albert Camus, The Outsider Pg 65
15
Albert Camus, The Outsider Pg 85
World Literature 1
Meursault’s second act of resistance is his refusal to sacrifice his principals to the priest who
insisted he accepted the existence of a second world. Had he the priest’s demand, it would be
treason to this world and imply his existence as a lie. Outrage by the priest who insisted he
“turn over to god”, Meursault stated “...I didn’t have much time left. I didn't want to waste it on
God”16. Although society see him as a man lacking strong emotions, the truth it is exactly the
opposite as in reality he is a man so devoted to his principals of life his strong emotions are
accentuated through his stubbornness to comply with oppressive demands as seen in,
“...something exploded inside me. I started shouting…I insulted him…told him not to pray for
me...a paroxysm of joy and anger.”17 Finally, he convinces the priest, demonstrating his
philosophy as the most rational one, “Nothing, nothing mattered and I knew very well why. He
too knew why...His eyes were full of tears. ”18
Like Firdaus, Meursault’s final act of resistance was sacrificing himself to the penal system. by
giving in to the demands of the oppression it would negated the meaning and purpose of their
existence. The social hegemony proved itself to be incapable of understanding Meursault’s
motives and their decision to execute him only reinforces their ignorance, making a mockery of
their “justice”. This is seen in “...another thing had surprised him...I didn’t know how old
mother was. ”19 “...I said quickly it was because of the sun. Some people laughed.”20 As a
response to their self-deliverance from oppression, the hegemony was keen to use the law as a
rationale to abolish whatever traces of freedom each they had experienced. As seen in “The
Outsider” where the prosecutor “asked for” Meursault’s “head” with “an easy mind” and is
“enlightened by a sense of urgent and sacred duty.”21Although Meursault was aware of his
16
Albert Camus, The Outsider Pg 114 17
Albert Camus, The Outsider Pg 115 18
Albert Camus, The Outsider Pg 115 19
Albert Camus, The Outsider Pg 86 20
Albert Camus, The Outsider Pg 99 21
Albert Camus, The Outsider Pg 99
World Literature 1
philosophy was seen as an existential threat, he was glad to die for his cause as seen in “...open
to the benign indifference of …I was still happy…my last wish…greet me with cries of hatred.”22
In conclusion, both novels can be read as sustained acts of resistance against social
hegemonies. It has been illustrated Firdaus’s resistance is against a patriarchal society and it
has been shown through her. Meursault’s act of resistance was directed against an oppressive
social code based on Christian morality Meursault could not believe in. Despite the benefits he
would have gained for even lying about this feeling, he refused. It could be argued therefore
the very existence of Firduas and Meursault was an act of resistance, as they both present an
“outsider” who challenges the hegemony of oppressive regimes. Both characters revealed
through various acts of resistance they could not be controlled or manipulated by the
oppressive forces of society.
Bibliography
Saʻdāwī, Nawāl, and Sharīf Ḥatātah. Woman at Point Zero. London: Zed, 2007. Print.
Camus, Albert, and Joseph Laredo. The Outsider. [London]: Penguin, 2000. Print.
22
Albert Camus, The Outsider Pg 117
Jensen Pon World Literature 2 10242
A commentary on Antigone by Sophocles
World Literature Assignment: 2c(commentary)
Name: Pon Chin Ching
Candidate number: 10242
Centre: 003257 Island School
Teacher: Mr. Langford-Smith
Pages: (49 to 57) (604-728)
Publication details: P.3-4.
Word count: 1335
This commentary is based on a passage from the play (Antigone) by (Sophocles)
(translated by David Franklin and John Harrison) The passage begins “That, my
son, is how you ought to feel… ” and ends “…worshipping the dead is wasted
labor.”
Jensen Pon World Literature 2 10242
I have chosen this extract of “Antigone” because the tyranny of Creon is exposed through the
verbal conflict he engages with his son Haemon. The significance of this passage is it question
whether Creon is entitled to the throne through the verbal conflict with his son. The message
conveyed here is Creon’s inability to remain impartial, free of prejudice when making decision,
therefore the change of Haemon’s attitude toward his father changes from respect to disgust,
implying Creon’s unsuitability to rule.
In terms passage’s structure, the conversation begins in long and extended speeches and
progress into short and direct phrases, where exchanges between characters are limited to one
or two lines (also known as stichomythia). The choice of diction and tone also shifts. At the start
Creon begins patronizes Haemon by referring to him as “my son”, then as the passage
progresses he resorts to insults by calling him (688)“worthless boy”. On the other hand,
Haemon begins in a humble and respectful attitude when he attempts to give Creon advice by
subtly implying he agrees with Creon’s urge on following good sense. However, as the passage
progresses Haemon realizes Creon is unwilling to take his advice and even insults him, in an act
of self-defense he says his father is (706) “talking nonsense.” The deterioration the father and
son relationship is effectively illustrated through the prominent shifts in language- choice of
diction and words, structure of dialogue and tone- attitude.
The passage opens with a speech by Creon. Being the father of Haemon, he begins his very first
sentence in a patronizing attitude towards Haemon. He refers to Haemon as “my son” and puts
paternal expectation on Haemon to adopt his view as seen in, (604) “That, my son, is how you
ought to feel in your heart…” By using the word “ought”, he is implying Haemon’s duty and
moral obligation to listen to his father. He puts further expectations on Haemon by expecting
him to adopt his loyalties, (607) “do harm to their father’s enemies…” Next, Creon speaks of
Antigone with a misogynistic attitude. Not only does he warn Haemon to (611) “…never
abandon your good sense of pleasure, for a woman… (633) and never be worsted by a woman”
He also refers to Antigone as “an evil woman”. The cold and direct phrase in which he says,
(618) “I will kill her” reinforces Creon’s deep-seated misogyny to women in general. In addition,
Jensen Pon World Literature 2 10242
Creon’s manner of speech becomes increasingly offensive and insensitive when referring to
personal issue regarding Haemon’s bride and the gods. This seen in phrases, (615) “spit her out
like an enemy” and (618) “Let her sing hymns to Zeus” and later on, (727) “…worshipping the
god is wasted labor” The lack of respect Creon has towards Antigone and irreverence towards
the god makes it difficult for Haemon to agree and accept his advice. Therefore, what follows is
Haemon’s subtle but uncompromising rebuttal speech against Creon’s prejudice and unfair
judgments.
The significance of Creon’s speech shows he places his ego above what is just and does not
think anybody is in a position to challenge his position. This is an important aspect of his speech
as Creon’s dictatorial tendencies are glaringly revealed.
Creon’s speech is followed by Haemon’s rebuttal speech. In his speech, Haemon begins in an
extremely agreeable manner by praising good sense, implying he agrees with Creon on the
importance of following good sense. He also displays empathy towards his father’s position,
(641) “It is not your nature to pay attention…your look frightens…prevents them (people) from
saying things you would not like to hear.” Then, Haemon tells Creon in an honest and sincere
attitude the truth most people do have their sympathies towards Antigone and secretly support
her.
To stress his point, he uses a rhetorical question, (649) “does she not deserve a golden prize of
honor?” The significance is his choice of words is shows Haemon genuinely supports Antigone’s
cause and may have caused Creon to feel he is speaking in interest of Antigone. However,
Haemon disproves him by arguing he cares for his father’s welfare saying (651), “I value your
success. What greater reward can children have than their father flourishing in glory, or he
from them?” He even points out the limitations of his role as a son and says, (666) “If I may
offer an opinion, young as I am…” and he rationalize it’s his argument is important not who says
it, (669) “it is good to learn from those whose words are wise” Although Haemon’s words were
Jensen Pon World Literature 2 10242
unbiased and open-minded, Creon refuses to give in to his son’s advice and attacks his age as
being too young.
Creon’s response to Haemon’s reply is extremely negative and prejudiced as he refuses to
submit to Haemon’s view, stating his young age puts him in no position to argue. (673) “So are
men of my age to be taught sense by a man of his?” However, when Haemon reveals even the
city is against his rule, (679) “The united people of Thebes say not.” Creon’s tyranny is
immediately exposed and what unfolds is a series of insult between Haemon and Creon. In
terms of dialogues, their responses are not long and extended speeches and the conversations
have shifted in to exchanges of one and two lines- a technique known as stichomythia. Not only
does this signal the end of rationalization and reason between the two characters, but Creon no
longer knows how to rebut Haemon’s attack and resorts to mere insults at Haemon. As seen in,
(688) “worthless boy….(693) foul creature, lower than a woman.” This effectively reinforces
Creon’s true character as one of self-centeredness, prejudice, and arrogance.
More importantly, when the long extended speeches shift to exchanges of one and two lines,
Haemon’s attitude also change. For the first time in the story, Haemon’s change of attitude is
apparent as he criticizes his father for being ignorant as seen in, (705) “you were talking
nonsense.” At the same time he no longer addresses his father in a formal or respectful way. As
seen in, (712) “don’t even imagine it…so you can rave on...”
It can been seen the nature of their interaction in the scene has shifted from positive to
negative, this change in value is exemplified through Haemon’s changing attitude and tone of
voice, and Creon’s increasing resistance towards his son’s views. The passage breaks the
traditional moral code where sons are expected to show blind submission and obedience
towards fathers regardless whether or his judgments are correct or not. The change in structure
of their dialogue from long and tedious to short and sharp outbursts of insult at one another
prominently highlights the theme of conflicting view between son and father. The end of the
conversation conveys Creon’s inability to discard his prejudice against roles of lower status
Jensen Pon World Literature 2 10242
where he remains unchanged in his decision and Haemon’s resentment towards his father
Thus, Creon’s failure to reconcile his opinions with son shows he is incapable of ruling wisely.
Throughout the passage, Haemon’s character undergoes an irreversible change in terms of his
attitude towards his father who makes the final decision to punish Antigone. This change is
comes along with his sudden realization his father does not appeal to reason and is heavily
prejudiced against his age and women. This realization is crucial part of the passage and
explains why Creon is unworthy of the throne.
In conclusion, I think this passage not only challenges the tradition of a son’s blind devotion
towards his father, but also whether prejudice against one’s role hinders rational and fair
judgment. Demonstrating how the negative influences and culture of the patriarchal society has
made it difficult for a man of high status to discard his prejudice against people of lower status
and make fair judgments through a veil of impartiality. At the same time, Haemon’s rebellion
against his father is prominent characterization of a person who rejects his society’s imposed
values and prefers to make judgment on logical and unprejudiced principals.
Bibliography
Sophocles, David Franklin, and John Harrison. Antigone. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003.
Print.