essay titles: 2a. in what ways do the actions of meursault and firdaus demonstrate their resistance...

(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



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.







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



Albert Camus, The Outsider Pg 9 14

Albert Camus, The Outsider Pg 65

15


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







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


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.”


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,


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


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


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.

essay titles: 2a. in what ways do the actions of meursault and firdaus demonstrate their resistance...

Documents

wife firdaus

firdaus realization

firdaus escape

oppression of marriage

act of resistance

story firdaus

system of marriage

forced marriage